thedwork

well that was definitely an odd set. i felt like wosniacki played much smarter even handed tennis than kim, but somehow still lost the set. i hope she picks it up...

big time!

yup. and wosniacki taking that tough game to break so she can serve for the set is tough. good tennis though. i assume it'll pick up for the 2nd set or maybe a 1st set tie break?

yeah. pretty much. but wosniacki taking 3 in a row to be up a break is pretty cool. i think it's gonna be a good match. i'm hoping for a 3-setter. both of these players have such strong ground strokes and really play w/ trategy and try to construct points. going back to it...

i've been watching tennis consistently for 35 years and i've never, ever, seen an outburst like that. they played it over in slow-mo after the match got called (code violation unsportsman-like conduct for a point which happenned to be match point, after she'd already been called earlier in the match for a racquet abuse violation...). she went nuts on that lineperson. f-bombs all over and saying she was gonna jam her ball down her throat, blah blah blah... then she went back for more! very ugly. as far as i know there's no precedent. that was insane. serena fucked up something royal and she deserved the point being taken away and probably more... all that being said, what the fuck was that linesperson thinking?!?!#$%^& worst call in the history of tennis! unfuckingbelievable. that shit is so fucked up all the way around. i can't believe it. did i really just see all that? WTF???!!!!!! Lovely? i believe the word you're looking for is HOT. and she's an excellent player. could be a great final. looking forward to it.

heard him on Pandora while at work the other day and was blown away. wanted to share him w/ the board and see if anyone here is familiar with him. Listen To Him Here At His Website or: i'd love to hear from anyone who has info on how to get a hold of his earlier solo recording. enjoy...

i know it's great for helping things grow and etc etc etc... but right now i hate rain...

quite plainly when you write that critics have "no standards" what you really mean is they don't have "your standards." what a drag reading that kind of blanket statement, self-absorbed horseshit. at the same time, it's interesting that you say you'd only consider the advice of people with 'no standards' when it's about something you know nothing about. now that's a genuine example of actually having no standards. good job flat5...

that's actually not a bad idea. but don't tell the republicans. they'll start screaming about deregulation... (oops... sorry. non-political discussion). i had the enviable pleasure of being assigned the review of the American Idol (AI) Tour in Albany, NY last year for the local schenectady newspaper. excerpt: "Reality TV's biggest phenomenon brought its well known brand of verisimilitude to the Times Union Center Wednesday night. Keeping it 'real' at the show were David Cook and nine other high place finishers for the season. [giant cut of nearly entire body of review to get to the point...] But the real star of the show was - the Show. Stage runways, multiple large projection screens, MTV-style camerawork, screaming tweens, embarrassed parents, huge arena space, AI theme song introduction to the program - it was all there and it was all encompassing. But there's no escaping the duality of AI reality. These idols are linked to an increasingly tangled web of corporate cross-marketing. The spectacle is awash in a culturally pervasive haze of mindless branding: Get the can of Coke into the hands of the rock star who sang on AI and place their song on a Universal Studio soundtrack with an eye toward AT&T ring-tone rights to drive sales of the "tie-in" McDonald's cup placement which helps promote the Simon & Schuster tween book sales and starts buzz for the Disney Channel spin-off television show. And don't forget that the 2008 tour is sponsored by Pop-Tarts: Kellogg's suger-coated toaster pastries. The show was put on so professionally, however, that it almost makes you forget about all that other stuff. Almost." i had fun writing that and i had fun at the show. imo, knowing what's really happening (marketing, not always a very high level of musicality, etc...) - and enjoying the program - are not mutually exclusive things. it's television. anyway, i think degeneres is a fucking riot. i like her style, she makes me laugh, i think she's a great choice. American Idol is about choosing a Pop Star; it's not Eastman School Of Music's auditions for big band. i don't watch the show too regularly, but i'll sit down and check it out a couple times if i'm home and it can be fun. and anyone who doesn't get a laugh out of the early rounds w/ all the freaks making asses out of themselves has a very different sense of humor than myself. that stuff is the direct descendent of The Gong Show and that show blew my mind when i was growing up. i recommend the movie Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind for anyone wanting to see what a lot of this 'reality' tv is coming out of.

can i apply for that position?

looking forward to watching Oudin play today/tonight. haven't seen her yet...

wow! this is some fine tennis...

i've been having the same issue for a while now. thank you sooooooooooooooooooooooo much!

agreed. it's no doubt heartfelt and kinda fun to read, but it doesn't feel like a very well thought out response to my ear. as poetry it's ok, as a real world response to the "jazz is dead" freak show, it's next to meaningless. and i think Payton is a fine player. i haven't gone through this whole thread (almost...) but it looks like nobody put up Nate Chinen's Response yet. i may be in the minority here, don't know, but i prefer his music writing to almost any other music writer for The Times and thought his response to Teachout was a good one. i particularly liked this: "But there’s a wealth of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, as many... responding mainly to Mr. Teachout, have been quick to point out... Scratch anywhere past the surface and you might begin to wonder whether the likes of Mr. Teachout and Mr. Gioia don’t see young people listening because they don’t know where to look." i tend to agree with this from my personal experience. the problem may relate to what i've heard referred to as "option anxiety." there's actually so many places to look for music these days and so many people putting music out, it's daunting to think of the effort involved in sifting through the glut to get at the goods. it may simply be easier to say, "Can't find it. Must not be there. Dead i guess. I can relax now." problem solved. time for dinner. the whole 'jazz is dead,' and it's corollary debate/hypothesis/argument/wankfest "what is jazz?" is a giant yawn as far as i'm concerned. there's a ton of great music and musicians out there right now. i honestly feel that anyone who doesn't realize this is simply lazy or has an agenda which the "jazz is dead" argument fuels. yawn... and this: ...kills me every time. right on Hot Ptah. i've always had a big problem with the term "America's classical music" being used to refer to 'jazz.' why use the term "American classical music" to mean jazz? is it so that people will subconsciously elevate their perception of what jazz music is to what classical music means in most Americans' minds, since the term "classical" in our culture, in regards to music, has come to mean 'high brow' or 'fine' or 'intelligent' etc...? or at least this is how the "bureaucrats" you may be speaking of may see/use the term. to me, this is a gross exercise in un-necessary ass-kissing. i think this may happen with many jazz lovers unwittingly, even to themselves. but any jazz lover who feels the need to attach the term 'classical' to the music they love, so as to give it some extra 'cache' or legitimacy, is sadly missing the point of the music. status is as far removed from the true meaning of any music as is the recipe for mixing rubber for tires. if the music is great, it will be great regardless of the term that's used to designate it. what do we think elitist, aristo[bureau]cratic, classical musicians (oh they're out there boy...) say behind closed doors amongst themselves about the jazzers calling their music 'classical?' they laugh and snub their noses. and in this case we're giving them reason to and that's ironic and pathetic. we don't have to use their term to feel that our music is legitimate on any level. i suppose you could argue that the word 'classical' has meanings aside from our associations w/ composers like Bach, Mozart, Copland, etc... but you're kidding yourself if you think that's not what everyone in this country thinks of when someone says classical while referring to music. and that's not a bad thing. classical, jazz, folk, old-timey, bluegrass, gospel, rock, etc... they're just words signifying a general style. what was i talking about? oh yeah - fucking Blue Note man! why don't they just stick to jazz artists? R&B/Soul is dead...

oh well. couple saved match points. this probably doesn't bode well for Venus. we'll see...

you may have spoken too soon! she was cruising to lose at 4-0 down and now she's won the last 3 games to make it 4-3 in the 3rd - and i believe it's her serve...

i figure this is the best place on the forum for anyone who may have interest in this band. here's my "feature" review of this stuff at Blurt-online (went up today): Radiohead Reissues i'd've written longer but i received the material only a week before release date and i worked full time every day at my regular job during that week. had to cram. some great music here...

That's because it WAS Harvey Keitel... cool! i watched the credits (i almost always do..) looking for his name and didn't see it there. did i miss it? or was he 'uncredited' for some bizarro Keitel-like reason?

saw it. i was mostly bored. a few excellent scenes and some fine acting here and there, but i just can't get w/ Tarantino's whole schtick. it's wildly uneven to me and just doesn't work for what i watch movies for. i wouldn't wanna get into any kind of definition game about what i want from a movie, but Tarantino ain't it. for my money, he just keeps shooting himself in the foot. and i know there are all kinds of explanations for why the parts of his films that take me right out of the picture and ruin the flow are 'cool' or very 'filmic' or whatever. they simply make me cringe. and IB definitely felt to me like a bunch of shorts pasted together, even though there was a plot. it still felt like "this, ok now this, now this, and here's this, now check this out, and this, etc..." disconnected. and i suspect that's not what was intended. it feels to me like QT had a few of the main violent sequences in his mind first (carving swastikas into foreheads, beating nazis heads w/ a baseball bat, shooting jews through the floorboards, etc...) and then made a story to be able fit around them, instead of having a story 1st. and here's where i say what i'm sure others who don't care for QT and this film are thinking but are afraid to, or can't quite put their finger on: i don't like the way he's using the universal condemnation of nazis as cover for his violent fantasies. under cover of Hitler. it's as if you can't fault him for it for fear of being called anti-semetic. as a jew that makes me very uncomfortable. i know that sounds like a wild over analysis and like i'm stretching but i can't escape feeling that way toward the picture. there were some fine scenes though. the entire opening sequence was terrific. both waltz and the guy who played the milk farmer father were perfect throughout. but did anyone else notice that wierd close-up shot of the farmer lighting his pipe. it was very specific and highlighted and then immediately when they cut away the pipe was out and there was no smoke in the shot. weird. and i didn't particularly like the over-done shot of the girl running away through the front door of the house. cool shot but overdone. i also didn't think it was necessary to re-show us that shot later in the film to spoon feed the audience that it was her only older. Eastwood woulda never done that. he trusts his audience. and of course the bar scene was way cool. i was hoping to like Pitt a bit more but i think he was just a bit miscast. he made it work ok 'cuz he's a very good actor but i don't think he was exactly right for the part. but he did crack me up when he started speaking italian toward the end. "bongiorno." Ha! edit: and the scoring annoyed the hell out of me. absolutely terrible music choices. blech. and what was up w/ all the switching around w/ the typefaces in the opening credits. he went through like 4 different types. to me, that's not 'creative,' it's nonsense. talk about distracted. does QT have adult A.D.D. or what?! last edit: did anyone else think the U.S. officer's voice on the other end of the phone conversation w/ Waltz at the end, where he's working out his deal for immunity and land on Nantucket, sounded like Harvey Keitel? In The Loop tomorrow night...

that's maybe the worst analogy i've ever heard.

I think Sandler's huge fund of barely-disguised hostility would have made him good for the role, but his hyper-recognizability would have made him terrible. So I'm glad he wasn't used. this "barely-disguised hostility" (i refer to it as rage) you mention is what made Sandler perfect for Anderson's Punch Drunk Love. one of my absolute favorite movies. and his 'hyper-recognizability' didn't hurt the film at all in my opinion. the flip side to Sandler's rage is his seeming 'hyper-sensitivity.' seems to me Anderson wrote the role w/ this exact combination in mind and maybe w/ Sandler in mind because that's already his M.O. for anyone paying attention. maybe the character was even inspired by Sandler himself. i'll write Anderson a letter... but since i haven't seen IB, i can't speak to Sandler in it (or not).

I'm with Jim on this - not having seen the new one. After Pulp Fiction he seems to be trying to keep up with the kids. basically agreed w/ all of the above, except i have a much greater dislike of him than you guys it would seem. tarantino annoys me to no end. i suppose you have to give him some credit technically, but for me he's all style and no substance. and that can be ok sometimes but not w/ him imo. he reminds me of a little kid yelling "Look at me Ma, look at me!!! Look! Look at me Ma!!" and when Ma (ie: the audience) looks, he's either purposefully picking a booger or flippin' you the bird like it's the funniest thing ever. he's mainly a snotty, immature brat who got lucky. "Made ya look, made ya look!" somebody should slap him upside the head. and he also represents another thing that annoys the shit out of me: overly self-conscious 'irreverence.' as if irreverence for irreverance's sake without any creative underpinning or point being made is sooooo cool and hip. it's not. it's childish. "Look at me, look at me! i'm being irreverant! i said something non 'P.C.' aren't i cool? you're not the boss of me! violence, crudeness, ha ha ha. i'm so irreverent. look at me, look at me! nobody is as irreverant as me. just look at all this blood. i'm so hip." people who see his hyper violence, lack of development, and overly self-conscious lazy comedic 'irreverance' as great film-making are mistaking creative for blank. i think he gets wayyyyyy too much praise. often he's merely a skilled button-pusher. and i don't think that's a very positive, or creative, skill to use in and of itself. sorry (not really). had to get that off my chest. what can i say - i'm not a fan. though i will of course have to go see IB since everyone is talking about it and i consider myself a movie freak. and i'm also a fan of Pitt so that's a plus. much more excited to see In The Loop. will be seeing that next week for sure...

i wish i could hang. for anyone who's going, i'd like to suggest trying to see Rolldown and Klang. both groups have Frank Rosaly in the drum chair. he's an amazing drummer.

i used to work at The Iridium as a server (and doorman/reservationist) for about 2 years in 2002-2003. i had the good fortune to work nearly every monday night during that period and got to see Les play countless times. despite the mean-spirited owners of the club, the workers all had a blast come every monday. it was sold out (or nearly) every week, 2 sets a night. after the 2nd set (i think it was the 2nd...) he'd have a line of 20-30 people waiting to shake his hand and have him sign their guitars. every week. regularly people had come from all over the country w/ this monday night activity on the itinerary. he'd meet and speak w/ every single person at nearly 90 years old - at midnight. unfuckingbelievable. great great guy. he did play nearly the same set over and over, but it didn't matter. somehow it was always fun and musical. and he'd tell many of the same jokes again and again. but they were funny every time. he was partial to giving Radio Shack a hard time! hilarious. he'd come up w/ new stories and go off on tangents all the time and the band would have to get him back to the music. it really ended up being nearly half stand-up, half music most mondays. he was most definitely a storyteller. all of us servers took turns taking dinner orders for the band every monday but Les had the same thing every week: "I'll have the chicken." his band was killer, especially his bassist nicky parrot who i've mentioned here on the forum before. and he'd joke around w/ her every night, telling the same risque jokes involving her (she is HOT!) and she always seemed to take it in the right spirit. he's old school and having fun. it's been so long now i don't remember it, but he told the same risque joke so many times about Nicky that sometimes he'd just be on auto-pilot and do the set-up wrong so it didn't make sense and she'd have to try and fix it. nobody cared. all of us servers would laugh at the gaffe and watch the crowd as they changed from puzzlement to slowly getting the intended joke after they heard us laughing at the misfire. it was always a good time. he still had terrific tone every time i saw him play. if i remember right, he ended every set w/ "How High The Moon" preceded by "Over The Rainbow," which was always particularly lovely. and he was still sharp enough to be able to play on most of the tunes his guests would call out. he had people sitting in most weeks; from killer playing locals (jazz and blues players) to big name rock stars. no matter who came on stage, Les would be sure to give 'em an ego check. he never took himself, or them, too seriously. thanks for so many good times Les Paul. working in the room while you were playing is one of my fondest memories of nyc. RIP.