Tuesday, October 25, 2005
DISCLAIMER: The following story is 100% true, and I will probably come across as a shallow asshole. Please note that this blog is called "The Shallow End of the Pool." You have full disclosure right there at the top of the page. For what it's worth, for any ladies out there, this is what guys talk about. All the time. You go to the bathroom in packs to talk about us, so fair is fair. Onwards.
At work the other night, I answered the phone and took a take-out order for somebody who was obviously dining alone that evening (one entree and one dessert). I gave the lovely-sounding young woman a total, asked for her name, and told her to come by in 15 minutes to pick it up.
I commented to the chef that she sounded really cute over the phone, and that it was a shame that she was eating dinner by herself. The following dialogue ensued:
CHEF: "Maybe she's not that cute."
ME: "Possible, but she sounded really cute."
CHEF: "What's the name?"
ME: "Ashley."
CHEF (after a brief pause): "There's no such thing as a girl named Ashley that's not cute, is there?"
ME: "I don't think so, no."
No real point to this story, except that I think he's right. There seems to be a small handful of names that only go to really attractive girls. Conversely, in the immortal words of John Bender, "Claire? That's a fat girl's name."
By the way, Ashley was not cute. She was positively gorgeous.
At work the other night, I answered the phone and took a take-out order for somebody who was obviously dining alone that evening (one entree and one dessert). I gave the lovely-sounding young woman a total, asked for her name, and told her to come by in 15 minutes to pick it up.
I commented to the chef that she sounded really cute over the phone, and that it was a shame that she was eating dinner by herself. The following dialogue ensued:
CHEF: "Maybe she's not that cute."
ME: "Possible, but she sounded really cute."
CHEF: "What's the name?"
ME: "Ashley."
CHEF (after a brief pause): "There's no such thing as a girl named Ashley that's not cute, is there?"
ME: "I don't think so, no."
No real point to this story, except that I think he's right. There seems to be a small handful of names that only go to really attractive girls. Conversely, in the immortal words of John Bender, "Claire? That's a fat girl's name."
By the way, Ashley was not cute. She was positively gorgeous.
Monday, October 17, 2005
What's In A Name?
Thanks to the fantastic book I'm currently reading ("Fargo Rock City" by Chuck Klosterman, which I can not recommend highly enough), I've been reminiscing quite a bit recently about a lot of the music I listened to back in my formative years. What I've realized is that a lot of the bands are still around in some form or another, but mostly with new members touring under the band names that made the few remaining original members famous to begin with. Lord knows this isn't exactly a new practice, but just because it has been going on for years doesn't necessarily make it right. I guess ultimately it doesn't really matter what I think, because as long as there is money to be made it will continue to be a common occurrence.
But just because it doesn't matter what I think doesn't mean I'm not going to bitch about it anyway. And I'd like to know what you all feel about this subject, too.
For example, Ratt. Yes, they are still around. But are they? Original vocalist Stephen Pearcy has been replaced by Jizzy Pearl (formerly of Love/Hate). In fact, the only two remaining original members are guitarist Warren DeMartini and drummer Bobby Blotzer. If a band is touring with only 2/5 of the lineup that made them stars back in the '80s, should they be allowed to use the Ratt name? I vote no. Legally, I guess, they can. But I at least think it's an insult to the fans to advertise "RATT" on the marquee and not be delivering 100% of the goods (which technically they can't, as Robbin Crosby passed away a few years ago). It's almost like a Ratt cover band.
Which brings me to Warrant. It seems that they might have a case for using the name, as they are currently touring with 4 out of 5 originals. But the one that's missing is Jani Lane, lead singer and co-writer of just about EVERY song in their repertoire (I just pulled out "The Best Of Warrant," and Lane is credited on 14 out of the 15 tracks). When a band was successful for such a relatively short period of time (in Warrant's case, roughly 3 years covering only two albums that would be classified as "hits"), it seems almost like stealing money from people to tour using the name without Jani Lane. Again, I guess legally they have the rights, but it still doesn't sit right with me.
This isn't just limited to lead singers being replaced, by the way. Sometimes it's the other members that get the boot, only to have the singer soldier on, still waving the band's original banner. Axl Rose has the nerve to call the bunch of misfits he's bossing around these days "Guns N Roses," but that doesn't make them Guns N Roses. As far as I'm concerned, GNR is dead and buried, and no matter whether Axl ever releases "The Chinese Democracy" (the long-delayed new album) or not, it's just plain wrong to stick the GNR logo on it. I'm actually kind of surprised; Rose is clearly so full of himself, you'd think he'd want to put his own name in big bold letters on the cover. Just picture it: "THE W. AXL ROSE PARADE (with friends) PRESENTS THE CHINESE DEMOCRACY."
And there are so many others that are open up to debate: Was Judas Priest still Judas Priest without Halford? Sabbath without Ozzy? Van Halen without Diamond Dave? So what does everyone think? Any other examples like these that really just burn you up? Or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill? Let's discuss.
But just because it doesn't matter what I think doesn't mean I'm not going to bitch about it anyway. And I'd like to know what you all feel about this subject, too.
For example, Ratt. Yes, they are still around. But are they? Original vocalist Stephen Pearcy has been replaced by Jizzy Pearl (formerly of Love/Hate). In fact, the only two remaining original members are guitarist Warren DeMartini and drummer Bobby Blotzer. If a band is touring with only 2/5 of the lineup that made them stars back in the '80s, should they be allowed to use the Ratt name? I vote no. Legally, I guess, they can. But I at least think it's an insult to the fans to advertise "RATT" on the marquee and not be delivering 100% of the goods (which technically they can't, as Robbin Crosby passed away a few years ago). It's almost like a Ratt cover band.
Which brings me to Warrant. It seems that they might have a case for using the name, as they are currently touring with 4 out of 5 originals. But the one that's missing is Jani Lane, lead singer and co-writer of just about EVERY song in their repertoire (I just pulled out "The Best Of Warrant," and Lane is credited on 14 out of the 15 tracks). When a band was successful for such a relatively short period of time (in Warrant's case, roughly 3 years covering only two albums that would be classified as "hits"), it seems almost like stealing money from people to tour using the name without Jani Lane. Again, I guess legally they have the rights, but it still doesn't sit right with me.
This isn't just limited to lead singers being replaced, by the way. Sometimes it's the other members that get the boot, only to have the singer soldier on, still waving the band's original banner. Axl Rose has the nerve to call the bunch of misfits he's bossing around these days "Guns N Roses," but that doesn't make them Guns N Roses. As far as I'm concerned, GNR is dead and buried, and no matter whether Axl ever releases "The Chinese Democracy" (the long-delayed new album) or not, it's just plain wrong to stick the GNR logo on it. I'm actually kind of surprised; Rose is clearly so full of himself, you'd think he'd want to put his own name in big bold letters on the cover. Just picture it: "THE W. AXL ROSE PARADE (with friends) PRESENTS THE CHINESE DEMOCRACY."
And there are so many others that are open up to debate: Was Judas Priest still Judas Priest without Halford? Sabbath without Ozzy? Van Halen without Diamond Dave? So what does everyone think? Any other examples like these that really just burn you up? Or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill? Let's discuss.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
GAME ON!!!!!
After WAY TOO LONG, the National Hockey League returned tonight. All 30 teams were in action, for a full slate of 15 games. And my team, the New York Rangers, were featured on the very first national telecast on the NHL's new home network, OLN.
I just finished watching the game, and the mostly unrecognizable squad of kids wearing the Rangers sweaters played their hearts out and pounded the crap out of the hated Philadelphia Flyers, 5-3. It was such a beautiful sight, I almost shed a tear. After so many years of high-priced, free-agent veteran underachievers, I must say I really like the direction the team has taken. I don't expect them to play this well every night (or even make the playoffs), but at least they seem to have a plan for the first time since '94.
God, I missed you, hockey. Please don't go away again.
P.S.- On top of the glorious return of the NHL, the Yankees are beating the Angels 1-0 in Game 2 of the opening round of the playoffs. Happy Birthday to me.
I just finished watching the game, and the mostly unrecognizable squad of kids wearing the Rangers sweaters played their hearts out and pounded the crap out of the hated Philadelphia Flyers, 5-3. It was such a beautiful sight, I almost shed a tear. After so many years of high-priced, free-agent veteran underachievers, I must say I really like the direction the team has taken. I don't expect them to play this well every night (or even make the playoffs), but at least they seem to have a plan for the first time since '94.
God, I missed you, hockey. Please don't go away again.
P.S.- On top of the glorious return of the NHL, the Yankees are beating the Angels 1-0 in Game 2 of the opening round of the playoffs. Happy Birthday to me.
