:the.curious.skeptic:

2005-10-24T21:19:00.000-07:00

Last night was surely a milestone in my life, not really a "milestone" in the sense like a giant monolith that appears due to an event in your personal history but more like a "yardstone"; I could relate it to you like an 8-year old boy finding a geode in his backyard.

It was the first truly cold night in Nashville this fall and I had just returned home from Chitown a mere 4 hours earlier from seeing the bless'd Whitesox clean up in the World Series game one against the Houston Astros. It had been a struggle to get back in time but I had to get back in town to see this show. My roomates' band, mikeschair, was opening for Kevin Max, 1/3 of the Christian super-group DC Talk. This was huge to me as DC Talk's albums like, Free At Last, JESUS FREAK, and Supernatural were staples in my musical upbringing. I can look you in the eye and say that band and those albums were direct segways to me getting into the bands I love today like Radiohead, U2, Indie Rock and serveral others. The last time I saw DC Talk, well for this entry's purpose, Kevin Max was in either late 97 or early 98 during their Supernatural Tour at Freedom Hall in Louisville. Needless to say it had been a while since my last experiance with any member of the former poster boys of Contemporary Christian Music. It was a tad surreal for me to see Kevin Max in a small club with a capacity of approximately 500 when the past three times I saw him were in venues that could seat in the five digits.

The show started an hour later than it was supposed to (I would know, the fruits of my labor happened to be the concert poster) which translated to the audience waiting outside in the cold an hour longer than we were supposed to, oh well, it could've been like the Sufjan show where we waited outside for over two hours to get into the venue. After we got in Exit/In the show started promptly with a great set from mikeschair, where they tore through their standards like "Be Hear Now", "Awaken Me", "Free", and the new Mute Math inspired "Otherside". Being a Nashville based band they brought a good crowd to the show and had great presence for their first appearance at the famed Exit/In. If you're into CCM consider yourself warned, these boys are about to become a household name (...so I felt a bit obligated to say that seeing that three of them are my roomates).

KMax's set followed a prompt 20 mintues later, I thought it'd be a lot longer set change based on the hour doors delay precedent, but started off with a rather rockin' number known as "Confessional Booth" (or at least that's what I remember it opened with...where was my notepad when I needed it). The set lasted a little over an hour, he played most of the songs off his new record and a couple off his old, he popped out "Your Beautiful Mind" for the token mid show acoustic set and closed with an acoustic song which I can't remember backed by the guitarist for The Violet Burning.

I walked out really impressed by the show, through all the years/albums/live shows, Kevin's voice has really stood the test of time and don't worry he still has the Leslie Cabinet firmly placed between the vocal chords for Elvis like vibrato. He seemed a bit awkward on the stage at times, often singing with one hand tucked firmly in his blazer pocket but that could be for several reasons, it was a CD Release party, a triumphat return to Nashville with a new outlook on life and new material, and it was a club show, a far cry from the venues of yesteryear. It was a throroughly good rock show with great musicianship and quality songs.

KMax was performing songs off his new release, The Imposter, out now on Northern Records. It's more of a rock 'n' roll effort than his last release which was just a little more weird. Throughout the record you find elements of the new wave renaissance in the backing programming and synths in tracks like "Confessional Booth" and "The Imposter" but there's also a major riff rock song in "The Royal Path of Life". The Imposter has a very spiritual feel to it, as is to be expected from an old CCM artist, but on listening to this record a couple times it's a very honest spiritual vibe. Growing up, I was weened on Christian rock, acts like Audio Adrenaline, Hoi Polloi, Dakota Motor Co., Black Eyed Sceva, Bleach, the classics...and after looking back on this and listening to the records again you get the sense that a lot of these songs lyrically seemed forced or canned so they can still fit in the scope of mainstream Christian rock. In "The Imposter", Kevin is very poetic about his journey struggle with spirituality when he realizes that the imposter in his faith is actually him. At the helm of this project was Andrew Prickett (of Violet Burning) who along with producer played the roles of guitar, keys and keyboarding. He did a great job of straight up bringing the rock on this record but still spotlighting the out and out talent that KMax possesses in "manley vox box". From "Confessional Booth" to "Fade To Red" you can truley tell that while Toby Mac might have been the marketting genius behind DC Talk, Kevin Max was definately the voice that defined them.

2005-10-04T20:10:00.000-07:00

some basic thoughts about revolving doors.

I think its funny when places of business make sure people ‘leave through the revolving door.’ Are business owners putting this on the exit area because they bought the door and they want people to use it, they are afraid if people don’t use it, it’s a wasted expense and now no one will use their door. They are afraid that the regular door will get more attention? People use regular doors more often, that’s why they are called regular doors, people use them regularly. Its kind of a treat to be able to use a revolving door, because who has those in their houses. These are the kinds of things that make going into a business with a revolving door more of an experience rather than just going into a place of business with a regular door. I want to go to a place where Im not just buying products but an experience. At least I think that’s what business owners so generously expect for me. Are there less expenses that come with a revolving door? A can of WD40™ once in a while? Plus, a revolving door kind of limits the amount of customer traffic in the store at one time, its sets the pace for the cash-register worker to really do his or her job well, where as if there were just a ‘regular’ door at the damn front-end of the store, one might think it practical to leave the door ajar, letting in hoards of people at one time, frustrating the cash-register guy (or gal), it leaves more room for people to just sift through clothing or merchandise at their own will, therefore requiring the business owner to hire a new merchandise manager (ie. folding, stocking, etc.) and that’s a pain not really needed for him or her. They’ve got to be focused on delegation, making sure everyone is doing something that they don’t have to be doing. If a manager or a business owner has to pick up duties, this would be horrible, we must make sure all business owners are safe and sound at home/yacht/vacation/beach without any distraction.
I work for someone who intimidates the hell out of me. And I don’t do well working for people, at all. If you intimidate me, I think I piss my pants, and forget about all of my individualistic pride. Yesterday, the owner of the restaurant I work at asked me a simple question; “hey Alex, you know where Faith Hope and Charity is?” This is a Catholic Church in Winnetka mind you. (That though is just hysterical in itself) It wasn’t like he was asking me to paint the roof, or do him some errand, he asked me where a church was and I still fumbled my words, forgot where I was and started crying a bit. Im kidding, but we don’t have a revolving door, and that guy has people covering all necessary duties. Maybe having a revolving door is more about not having to resort to a fear-driven management style. ‘Just come in at an easy pace, not all at once, don’t use the easy little door next to the revolving door because you just cant, and its for handicapped people, and I don’t really even want them using it, sure I’ll lose business, but I’d really rather not use the side door, just stick with the…” right, or theres “bring ‘em all, just come on in, we can handle all your damn business, we’ll make your food, we’ll fold your clothes, we’ll sell you merchandise, ive got my employees so scared if they make a wrong move they wont know what hit ‘em.”

Make sure to ‘exit through the revolving door.’

Call me crazy, but I feel like we care about the wrong things. First, why should we be careless about running a business? If there is some good reason why people should exit through the revolving door rather than the ‘regular’ door, great, then lets do that, and do it well. However, after I left American Apparel, where I saw this inspiring sign, I found the cover of The Economist to be rather unsettling. “Whats Gone Wrong for America’s Right.” A statement in the shape of a question. Our own media, once again, criticizing its government. I’m not saying we shouldn’t criticize, criticism is great, I need it. If what im writing sucks, I want to hear about it. If my leadership is not working, a good leader should invite healthy and hard criticism, but I’m wondering how seemingly masturbatory complaining/assessing is affecting the confidently unbreakable economy and infrastructure we have here in America. What does that look like to all of the other sixteen countries where The Economist is sold? What is our self criticism actually doing in the long-run rather than just gain a great amount of nodding heads.

Embrace the truth.

Never run from or avoid truth, if what they are saying is true, lets find a way to fix the problem, lets go through the revolving door. The article is good, read it. I wonder about the shock value of it though.

More later.

2005-09-30T13:43:00.000-07:00

Last night I made a decision that I wasn't sure if I'd regret or not. I decided to go see the Exorcism of Emily Rose. Now for those of you who haven't seen it, it's not really what the previews make it out to be, it's a court room movie and what we see of Emily Rose and her possession are from testimony in the court room. Ever since I saw a preview for this movie I wanted to see it, I tend to enjoy movies of a more frightening nature and this one seemed like a "doozy". However, based on the subject matter I was hesitant to visit my local cinema and purchase a ticket. I don't know your background or beliefs or whatever you may call it but I find myself in the camp that believes and acknowledges that there is a supernatural realm. That said there was a feeling that this movie would stick out a little more since it's real and it could (and does happen) to people around the world, whereas any other scary movie (i.e. Boogie Man, Freddy/Jason, The Ring, It, Etc...) tend to find themselves in impossible circumstances which make them unbelieveable and at sometimes laughable. Somehow these movies still manage to get the adrenaline pumping. -must get back on topic- Needless to say a group of people were going to see this movie last night and I succumbed to the peer pressure and bought a ticket to The Exorcism of Emily Rose. It was pretty intense, I'm not gonna lie to you but that being said I didn't have trouble sleeping that night so rest easy (haha...).

As I was walking to the parking lot of the theatre there were a few things that had crossed my mind about this film. I really wondered how close they stuck to the story which can also be read: how "hollywood" had this movie become from what actually happened. They had made mention of 3 AM and its signaficace of being the "demonic withcing hour", which sounds a bit Hollywood to me. The priest claimed he constantly saw a dark figure during the trial and during the time he was tending to Emily Rose which can be interpreted as a Hollywood addition however when I've talked to people who claim they've seen something supernatural they agree to this dark, cloaked figure which was mentioned in movie...Hollywood now??

The biggest thought provoker of the movie came when they showed the exorcism ritual. Well it wasn't really the ritual portrayed on film but an aspect of the ritual that stuck in my head. During the ritual the priest commands the demon(s) inside Emily to give the priest their name(s) which takes a little prodding on the priest's part. Finally it gives up its name(s) which turn out to be six of them, sitting there I recognize Legion and Lucifer (ok I'm feeling really dark and evil right about now) but I'm pretty sure Lucifer was thrown in there for the Hollywood effect. Let's look at this not just this movie but the idea of demonic possession and exorcism in general...alright we have Subject A who tends to be a devout believer mayber someone who is a little more sensitive to the supernatural and Subject B a "demon" which has entered Subject A and allows Subject A to do uncanny things like speak in different diealects or even have two different voices at once, possess superhuman strenght, basically anything out of the ordinary. Now if you claim to be a believer then you can command these demons in Jesus' name, you can rid them from Subject A via an exorcism or command them to tell you their name. Alright, hold on a sec..this sounds like there's a dialog going on between Subject B, the demon(s) and Subject C, the Exorcisor (is that even a term/word), now think about who you would be talking to, a demon....okay freaky in all sense of the word. Let's dig a little further, this thing you are talking to, how old is it? EXACTLY...this thing is OLDER THAN TIME, let me repeat that so it can sink in a little bit better, the thing you are talking to is older than the time, the absolute of all absolutes. You see a demon is a fallen angel and this happened when Lucifer tried to be God back before time and was cast out of heaven with 1/3 of the angels who sided with ol' Luci-dawg. Now let's think what can one (Priest/Believer) say to this demon(s) that they haven't heard before, think about it, no amount of intellect by any one person on this earth would have the ability to wow them, they have heard IT ALL! I was pretty much blown away with this, I mean we get nervous/sweaty palmed/anxious to talk to a famous person, but think about talking to someone who has lived all of history and before...That would officially be scary as hell....

2005-09-30T13:30:00.000-07:00

9/29/05
thursday.
belmont ave.

Sitting in one of the most romanticized parts of Chicago can do nothing but great things for ones creative energy or energy’s. After I felt that, one, not even me could find escape from the ‘cage’ that is Winnetka where I live. I took off from a long lunch at work and rode the EL to one of my favorite parts of Chicago. Belmont avenue. A typically hip and trendy gem located on the north side of this very diverse my-kind-of-town city. I could not have found a better location; I walked off the train to a bookstore and bought Ways of Seeing by John Berger, an artist-writer concerned about the way influences outside, or in, affect how one sees particular pieces of ‘art’ in culture. Why is the Mona Lisa such a “great piece of art?” Moreover how pieces of art like this have gained the entitlement to capitalizing the very title of the work. What do you capitalize in your world? ‘Mom,’ ‘Dad,’ ‘Car,’ ‘Bank Account,’ ‘Art,’ ‘Movie,’ ‘Film,’ (you love capitalizing film, you filmmaker you) ‘Clothes’? The list has no end. Regardless of simple capitalization, these works of art he talks about have been given value with no contention because of the meaning we have placed upon them, and the history they are derived from. And history; lived up to or down, therefore gives the work validation. In some ways, as I write, I feel that I am stepping into territory through which I have no business walking, however, I do know about how I give things validation and meaning.
Ok, but the point is that Van Gogh, Picasso, Monet, Pollack, Elliott Smith, were all saying something, some message, when they were creating their work. What that message was, is highly arguable, considering all of them are dead and I don’t have any articles about them or them commenting about their work next to me.
I have so many thoughts right now, and I realize yet again, that this may be somewhat disjointed but I have thoughts right now about Cat Stevens, one of my favorite writers/poets of the twentieth century. On the front page of his website are the words; “I never wanted to be a star.” Now, I know this sounds a bit off base regarding what I am talking about, I go from Art and the philosophy behind how we view it and now I am talking about the legendary songwriter from the sixties and seventies who now holds group burnings of his records.

“I never wanted to be a star.”

My only response is this, and it is easy and quick, and most are probably thinking it; but why the hell did you ever go into the studio? Why, Cat did you ever sign a management deal, or a record deal when all along, you knew full well these peoples jobs are to make your music heard around the country and hopefully the world. But can you ask those questions? Because you cant ask him why he ever even wrote a word down, or why he picked up a guitar. That would be unfair. You cant ask Van Gogh why he even picked up a paint brush if it was eventually going to lead to his suicide. No. These people did art because it was what made them who they were. I have a hard time believing that Stevens or Van Gogh, or Smith, had an easier time expressing through some other fashion. This was what worked for them and it proved true time and time again. It is said that JD Salinger still writes, but never publishes. How could he not do what his soul needs to do.

This was how these people send messages that could not be withheld, for some reason, the artist paints or writes, or plays, because there is no other means by which he or she is satisfied expressing. So what happens? A gift of God is quickly distorted by popularity and absurd fame, is made an idol upheld upon its bullet-proof platter, rather than a means by which a potential life-changing message is expressed. Its beauty becomes its own deterrent, distraction from its essence, its message.

Berger writes; “[any ‘famous’ work] is no longer what its image shows that strikes one as unique; its first meaning is no longer to be found in what it says, but in what it is.”

For many, an artist no longer is seen as a communicator, but a dictator, who is feared for his fame, wealth, ‘influence’ and respected because the masses respect him.

This is a long, book-worthy topic, Berger thought so. But it is very interesting to think about why things are popular, why we like certain pieces of art. Do you like the Mona Lisa because an obscure man named DaVinci painted it? Or do you like it because of the expression on her face? Neither is a better reason, some may think its more honest to like it for its message, but we must never discount DaVinci, can you paint like that?

Sure, Cat, you never wanted fame, but your messages had to be sent, and they are sent, how they are interpreted is sadly, not up to you.

Those are some thoughts.

ab