Lucky Night at the Trunk Space

Last night I saw 5 bands perform in the span of a few hours. Cuckoo Chaos, Porches, Father's Day, Treasure Mammal, Andrew Jackson Jihad. I had only heard the names of 2 of them before the show. I had only ever listened to one of them. I didn't own music from any of them.

It was fantastic.

True, the Led Zeppelin II vinyl and cool new people probably helped, but the music was what made the night. And I have a feeling that my lack of familiarity with the music was a large part of why.

This isn't the first time this has happened - I hear a band for the first time as an opening act or at a music festival, enjoy them immensely, then buy their album and completely lose what I loved before. I mean, the album is usually alright, but never as good as the show. This was the case with Against Me!, Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros, Apostle of Hustle, The Bravery, and probably a few more bands that I can't remember right now. It is rare that I'll hear a band for the first time live and enjoy them very much on my iPod. Actually, I think it's only happened once: Reel Big Fish. And the album I got was still a live album.

I think this has to do with something I've been saying about concerts for a while now. There are three components to the quality of a concert: the initial quality of the music, the energy of the band, and the energy of the audience. A great show only forms when all three are combined. 3 Doors Down was a lousy show, not just because it was 3 Doors Down, but because I seemed to be the only one there who wanted to have any fun. The Heavy had good music and an excited crowd, but everyone but the singer looked like they were just on stage because they were getting paid to be. Part of the reason that I practically refuse to see a show in a non-standing room venue is because the third component is largely lost when everyone is just sitting.

Sometimes the quality of the music can even be secondary if the other two parts are strong enough. Father's Day last night was actually some fairly terrible music in my opinion. I would never, ever buy one of their albums. But the show was a complete blast, because everyone there was having a fantastic time. The band interacted with the crowd and had fun, and the mosh pit was one of the best I've ever experienced.

Now, when you only have the CD, you only have one component, and so you inherently focus more on the tiniest flaws in the music. If the crowd is good and the band knows how to perform, the experience as a whole will be strong, even if the music itself isn't that great, not to mention the basic thrill increase of live music compared to studio. The concert atmosphere almost acts as a buffer.

The thing is, no one wants to take a risk and go to a show from someone they've never heard of, even if it could turn out to be better than one they do know. Even with all I've said, I'm guilty of the same. But I think that's because most casual listeners don't pay much attention to the local music scene and they only go to shows of bands they know well. I don't blame people for not wanting to drop $60 on someone that could be lousy. But the Trunk Space show was $5 for 5 bands and an entire night of entertainment. And even though Porches was only mediocre and Treasure Mammal wasn't really my thing, the show was great as a whole. If nothing is good, you only lost $5. That's less than a CD, and, as I've said, could easily be better than one.

So hang out around the Trunk Space sometime. I'll see you there, enjoying someone I've never heard of before.

Have a concert story? Think I'm an idiot? Comment to your heart's content.

Social Mediating: Why We Embarrassingly Use Social Media

Social media websites are fantastic tools. Most people don't think of them this way, but they are. Now, if I want to organize a big party, I don't have to call up 30 different people to give them my personal info, or print dozens of paper printing invitations that they'll probably forget about - I can just invite them all on Facebook. And Facebook will remind them when it is for me. Instead of having to call half a dozen people to find one that knows the page numbers for the math homework, I can just post a status about it and it's safe to assume that someone will respond.

Beyond making life easier in those types of cases, some major things that would be otherwise near impossible are no longer thanks to these sites. Protests have been organized on Twitter. Search parties have shared information on Twitter. I remember my freshman year, when tons of my classmates shared research information for a major project, all on my friend Cleo's Facebook wall. All completely seamless.

But all these require that a person already be using these sites. I could invite people to my party on Facebook, but if my friends didn't already use Facebook for other reasons, no one would see it. We could say it's to meet new friends, but most of our friends on Facebook are people we already know in real life. We could say it's to be able to easily chat from one place online, but Facebook's chat system is downright terrible, and there are dozens of other, more capable ones. So what brings us to these sites?

I think that it's because human beings are naturally awkward as a whole. When we first meet a new person, it can often be difficult to find a smooth conversation with them, as we have nothing to launch us off. Meanwhile, Facebook breaks the ice for us. One friend of mine was the perfect example of this; I've had dozens of conversations regarding Metal Gear Solid, video game music, and other nerdiness over Facebook with him, and before it, we barely even spoke a word. I probably wouldn't have even ever learned he liked all of the things he does without his posts, and vice versa.

Though we don't want to admit it, vanity is a big part of it. If I post something on Facebook, it's because I think people really want to hear about it (and this comes from somebody who's posted pictures of kielbasa sandwiches and Guitar Hero high scores - you're welcome, friends). Sounds dumb and self-serving, but it's true. Looking at my news feed right now, I see people complaining about too little sleep, wanting to buy sunglasses, boasting about what their dog can do, and other similar details of everyday life. No other reason could persuade us but to think that people are truly interested in our nothingness. That's why a link to my Facebook page is to the right of this article right now: because for some reason, I assume people care.

And yet they do, to a degree. Ashton Kutcher's Twitter is mostly valueless. Tons of tweets about football, and one recent tweet as of posting proclaims "I would like to dedicate today to sitting on my ass and doing nothing!" Hooray. And yet he had nearly 6 million followers - so what gives?

Embarrassingly, we all indulge in this nonsense. After becoming hopelessly addicted to the awesome podcast Talkradar, I began following the Twitters of each of the usual hosts. Though it is handy to see them posting about recent articles they wrote for the corresponding site GamesRadar, I already check GamesRadar daily, so it seems like I continue following for the other, completely unimportant stuff. But why?

It's all part of the magic of what made the internet what it is. The whole point is to bring people across the world together, and social media does that with celebrities in a way never done before. When we watch our favorite musician on a talk show, it's not just because we like their music; they aren't playing anything while we hear them talk. It's because we want to know more about this person, who they are, what makes them who they are. Now, instead of just seeing Ashton Kutcher's stupid, shallow characters, we get to see his stupid shallow lifestyle as well. But we love it, because this person means something to us. Basically, social media gives us the illusion of friendship with celebrities.

So yes, social media sites are a fantastic tool, and they make life easier in a lot of ways. But the reason we all spend so much time on them every night might be a bit embarrassing.

Feel free to disagree - as long as you do so in the comments.

Here's How to Waste Your Evening

Sorry, but I'm just not gonna have time for a regular blog post tonight. Homework is not in favor of that happening.

On the other hand, I'd like to show you guys this really cool new thing. We all love Mario, right? We all hate games that are too hard or too easy, right? Mario games are usually pretty solid as far as difficulty goes, being easily accessible to those who know little about games and especially deep or difficult at times for those who are more hardcore. But this takes it to the next level.

Essentially, Infinite Adaptive Mario observes how well you do and adapts the game accordingly. If you die a lot, there are more coins and less enemies that appear. Kick ass, and the opposite happens. Essentially, they've taken the AI from the Left 4 Dead games (which did essentially the same thing) and plopped it in Mario. Also, it's free.

I don't think this should be the new standard to any degree. I'm in favor of games being a more guided experience that the developer designs to be played a certain way. Plus, games like Mega Man and Demon's Souls are hard intentionally - spicy food is good because it's spicy. But some games could benefit from adapting the number of enemies or powerups based on your performance. It really worked for Left 4 Dead.

Here's where you can read into the details and download the game. Have fun not doing what you're supposed to be doing.

http://eis-blog.ucsc.edu/2010/09/infinite-adaptive-mario/

My Personal Batman

Dammit, forgot on Thursday again. Which is weird, because I had almost nothing to do on Thursday. Practically no homework to use as an excuse. I did, however, get to use my extra time to watch Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, a movie based on the Animated Series. I had... mixed feelings.

I feel like it needed to be darker, but it was really as dark as it needed to be. So it was strange. Batman is really important to me, but I just feel like I prefer to see the series in a more realistic light. The fact that it was a cartoon in the first place hurt that, as the animation felt somewhat stilted, but most of the Batman I consume is in comic book form, so that isn't the issue (no pun intended?).

I guess I just feel like it needed to be more... real. I wanted the characters to make expressions that felt like real expressions. I wanted Batman to act like I felt Batman should act; I don't know what that is, but it wan't what I saw in Mask of the Phantasm, because he felt to animated and not real enough. I want the Joker to act like a real insane man and be able to kill people and do things with consequence - as much as I LOVE Mark Hamill's voice for him, the character as a whole just didn't do it for me.

By no means does that mean they have to be like Christopher Nolan's interpretation of the series, which is the only means by which the majority of the population sees Batman nowadays. His movies are about as grounded in reality as Batman could possibly be. But in a way, that damages what makes Batman special. After seeing Scarecrow's fantastic rendition in Batman: Arkham Asylum, Liam Neeson's version completely paled in comparison. Because in Arkham Asylum, even without the fear toxin, Scarecrow is a scary fucking dude, which is exactly what Scarecrow needs to be. By making him just a guy in a sack, he was more realistic, but less of what the character needed to be.

And more importantly, Heath Ledger's Joker. Heath Ledger did one of the greatest performances I've ever seen in any movie. But he did not play the Joker. He played a completely different character than you can see in any other Batman piece - unless you count the graphic novel Joker, which followed the movie, and was probably the greatest piece of disrespect I've ever seen to everything the Joker is. Heath Ledger was immensely entertaining, but he simply didn't pull off the wacky (murderous) clown nature of the Joker that I know and love.

So those are my thoughts on the Batman I don't like. In other news, you should all read The Killing Joke, because it's goddamn legendary. And Year One, which, in a series with at least a dozen different origin stories, is probably the definitive one. And Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth, for some of the best art you will ever see in a comic. And the entire 5-graphic-novel-long No Man's Land series, because it's just fantastic. I can lend all 5 to you if you want them.

Have your own favorite Batman piece? Disagree about Ledger (I wouldn't be surprised) or The Animated Series (yes, Robert, I know)? Read the article at all? Comment away.