I love Real Estate’s new release, Atlas. And it really should not be a surprise. Their last full length, Days, might have been my favorite of 2011. The self-titled debut was not bad either. So it was to be expected for their third album to be up to par. It definitely did not disappoint.
Real Estate is truly a band that has gotten better over time. Their first album, Real Estate, has all of the makings of a low-fi acoustic gem. There may be glimpses of imperfection, although it only adds to the overall vibe. The drums sound simplistic and a bit crashing. A few vocals are quiet and hard to hear. Some songs seem to wander too much. But the songs work to create a cohesive sound throughout the whole album. There are moments of brilliance as well. Certain tracks like “Pool Swimmers,” contain elements that sound inspired by psychedelic noise pop. Honestly, the album feels like the trio is built around impromptu jams. Solos--fairly uncommon in primarily acoustic bands--run joyfully throughout the songs. There are sections which sound as if they are made up on the spot. Overall, the album is an intricate jam session that can be listened to again and again.
Days drastically improves on its predecessor. Reminiscent of early Beach House albums, it is an addictive album. Tremendously catchy, it sounds a bit like the first album only with better production value. Every part sounds tighter and cleaner. It is the kind of music that is both subtle enough to fall asleep to and upbeat enough to put on at a party. Noise pop elements found in the first album are even more pronounced. After two years and the success of the first album, Real Estate sounded even better. Yet still, they did not lose the feel of each individual band member adding to the overall quality of the album. When it came out, I devoted a good amount of time to listening through it.
Atlas picks up right where Days left off. Like the first two full-lengths, Atlas is ten tracks long, clocking in just under 40 minutes. Everything on this album sounds fuller and more complex in ways the previous two did not. Reverb on the opening track “Had to Hear” swells in ways unlike anything from their earlier work, signifying a supposed new direction. But then following tracks, “Past Lives,” the first single “Talking Backwards” (which hearkens back to “Municipality” from Days), and the instrumental “April’s Song” begin to sound much more like the Real Estate of old.
The upbeat music still has the same relaxed feel, even if it accompanies some of the band’s most ominous lyrics which lament the passing of time. It causes questioning of the album’s title: maybe it is representative of a road map in life? The guitars lope so comfortably throughout, however, that it is easy to miss the message some lyrics. The sounds work so well together that even the bleakest lyrics have a tinge of optimism. In fact, once started, the album flows so well that it is difficult to interrupt the album during one sitting. Like their first album, clean solos are found at unexpected, yet fitting times. “Talking Backwards” does exactly what a single should do: it is too enjoyable to not repeat at least once. The album closes with three songs that feel too short, because they are songs that you simply do not want to come to an end.
After spending just a few days with this album, it is difficult to say whether I enjoy Atlas more than Days or if it is just the newness of the album that makes it attractive. Keep in mind that I think Days still has lasting quality, and when it first came out, it was on constantly in my room. Repeatability is a good way to judge music. There is no question that Atlas is a technologically sounder album; now we will have to see how pervasive its sounds and themes remain in the years to come. But as for now, I am finding myself enjoying it immensely and continually putting it on.
As of yet, each Real Estate album has gotten distinctly better and better. The band may have grown more complex in five years, but they have not lost any of the relaxed easy listening that I fell in love with then. Judging by the consistency of their releases, I’m excited to see what the group from New Jersey puts out next.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Simpler May Be Better
You may not have any reason to notice small, browser-based video
games. Even if you are a steady follower of video games, a wealth of
browser games will naturally go unnoticed. But after a little digging,
some treasures can be found. With almost no entry experience necessary
and no monetary cost, the return value on such games like Candy Box or A Dark Room is immeasurable.
Initially, I was looking for a simple, fun game to play where I could open a browser and leave it running. Nothing much more than a time-killer. Once in a while, I would play online strategy games that ran in real time. With titles like Tribal Wars or Supremacy 1914 you could log in daily, set your units, accomplish tasks or quests, and logout satisfied. These types of games interested me: strategy games that required minimal involvement. They are not unlike what you might find on a mobile device.
I found A Dark Room with a Google search.1 A Dark Room commences in, just that, a dark room. As you progress through the game you get more places, more people, and overall more tasks to complete. It sounds simple, but you must make some choices as to how to invest your resources. Patience is a virtue when it comes to achieving the best equipment. The game progresses slowly at first, but as your village expands, it becomes much more thorough and involved. The transition is quite amazing. As the game fills in, it is easy to forget how simply the game opened. Unless you’re a cynic.
I turned to Candy Box after I knew I needed something more like A Dark Room. In the same manner, I was quickly hooked on a simple premise. When seeing the sole option, “Eat all the candies,” with a number generator, “You have X candies!” that ticks up by one every second, you start to think: “Is this a joke? I mean, even the title sounds like a joke!” Here again, patience is a virtue. There is about three minutes of thinking you have been had before the game takes off. After that, there is little to slow it down. The game progresses so rapidly and in such different directions. Candy Box spawned a sequel as well. It was good, but not too different from the first. But I can’t complain. Why fix what isn’t broken?
That’s it. It sounds simple, I know, but that’s kind of all I can say without spoiling the fun that lies within playing them. Honestly, the two games are not entirely similar. Playing one does not scratch the same itch as playing the other. Both accomplish different and exciting qualities. But there are some similarities. Their minimalist art styles are reminiscent of one another. While they are games that operate on separate browser tabs while doing something else, both draw the player in with more and more involved gameplay. For both games, it is easy to click over to set something in motion, but many times become engrossed in another detail of the game.
Without going into much detail, games like A Dark Room, Candy Box, or its sequel can very much draw you in. I hesitate to describe too much, because there is just so much to discover, and the discovery, of course, is the fun. An “iceberg” analogy seems especially fitting here in describing the depth of these games. Is there an endgame? Some sense of finality? Don’t ask me. I have not found one yet, but that is not for lack of trying. Everytime I start one of these games I find new things to do or quicker ways to the things I do know. It is a steady pursuit to find new surprises.
I think the reason these games are so incredible is that expectations are almost nonexistent. It is hard to come up with broad comparisons to other games. Instead, you find some of the better elements of different genres of games. They are more involved than text adventures or point-and-clicks, or at least they seem to be. There are some strategic choices you have to make. The simple concept masks a much more fulfilling experience. There are enough facets to keep you constantly wanting to advance further into the game. Your style of gameplay can be passive or active, meaning the game can last as long or as short as you want. I’m pretty sure “graphics” (or lack thereof) do not matter in this discussion.2 It is just not easy to form a good complaint against these types of games. Again, unless you’re a cynic.
When I showed A Dark Room to a friend, at first he said he could see the potential for fun, but I could tell he was not fully committed. An hour later, I hear: “Am I on a quest? Is this an RPG?” Whether you are into video games or not, simple, browser-based games can be worth hours of enjoyment. I’ll be seeing you on the dusty path.
1 The Internet is a big place. By far, these are not the only games worth playing in your browser. Interesting new choices turn up daily that can be very rewarding. In fact, most genres are well represented with free browser-based clones. I am speaking only about two games that are somewhat similar, yet hard to classify.↩
2 And besides, Dwarf Fortress looks just as good and is wildly popular in some circles.↩
Initially, I was looking for a simple, fun game to play where I could open a browser and leave it running. Nothing much more than a time-killer. Once in a while, I would play online strategy games that ran in real time. With titles like Tribal Wars or Supremacy 1914 you could log in daily, set your units, accomplish tasks or quests, and logout satisfied. These types of games interested me: strategy games that required minimal involvement. They are not unlike what you might find on a mobile device.
I found A Dark Room with a Google search.1 A Dark Room commences in, just that, a dark room. As you progress through the game you get more places, more people, and overall more tasks to complete. It sounds simple, but you must make some choices as to how to invest your resources. Patience is a virtue when it comes to achieving the best equipment. The game progresses slowly at first, but as your village expands, it becomes much more thorough and involved. The transition is quite amazing. As the game fills in, it is easy to forget how simply the game opened. Unless you’re a cynic.
I turned to Candy Box after I knew I needed something more like A Dark Room. In the same manner, I was quickly hooked on a simple premise. When seeing the sole option, “Eat all the candies,” with a number generator, “You have X candies!” that ticks up by one every second, you start to think: “Is this a joke? I mean, even the title sounds like a joke!” Here again, patience is a virtue. There is about three minutes of thinking you have been had before the game takes off. After that, there is little to slow it down. The game progresses so rapidly and in such different directions. Candy Box spawned a sequel as well. It was good, but not too different from the first. But I can’t complain. Why fix what isn’t broken?
That’s it. It sounds simple, I know, but that’s kind of all I can say without spoiling the fun that lies within playing them. Honestly, the two games are not entirely similar. Playing one does not scratch the same itch as playing the other. Both accomplish different and exciting qualities. But there are some similarities. Their minimalist art styles are reminiscent of one another. While they are games that operate on separate browser tabs while doing something else, both draw the player in with more and more involved gameplay. For both games, it is easy to click over to set something in motion, but many times become engrossed in another detail of the game.
Without going into much detail, games like A Dark Room, Candy Box, or its sequel can very much draw you in. I hesitate to describe too much, because there is just so much to discover, and the discovery, of course, is the fun. An “iceberg” analogy seems especially fitting here in describing the depth of these games. Is there an endgame? Some sense of finality? Don’t ask me. I have not found one yet, but that is not for lack of trying. Everytime I start one of these games I find new things to do or quicker ways to the things I do know. It is a steady pursuit to find new surprises.
I think the reason these games are so incredible is that expectations are almost nonexistent. It is hard to come up with broad comparisons to other games. Instead, you find some of the better elements of different genres of games. They are more involved than text adventures or point-and-clicks, or at least they seem to be. There are some strategic choices you have to make. The simple concept masks a much more fulfilling experience. There are enough facets to keep you constantly wanting to advance further into the game. Your style of gameplay can be passive or active, meaning the game can last as long or as short as you want. I’m pretty sure “graphics” (or lack thereof) do not matter in this discussion.2 It is just not easy to form a good complaint against these types of games. Again, unless you’re a cynic.
When I showed A Dark Room to a friend, at first he said he could see the potential for fun, but I could tell he was not fully committed. An hour later, I hear: “Am I on a quest? Is this an RPG?” Whether you are into video games or not, simple, browser-based games can be worth hours of enjoyment. I’ll be seeing you on the dusty path.
1 The Internet is a big place. By far, these are not the only games worth playing in your browser. Interesting new choices turn up daily that can be very rewarding. In fact, most genres are well represented with free browser-based clones. I am speaking only about two games that are somewhat similar, yet hard to classify.↩
2 And besides, Dwarf Fortress looks just as good and is wildly popular in some circles.↩
Monday, January 13, 2014
On Jack Morris
Another year of voting for induction to the National Baseball Hall of Fame has come to a close. Stellar pitchers Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux fittingly entered together, as did Frank Thomas, the “Big Hurt,” probably the best designated hitter in history of the game. And what a solid class of 2014 this is. These were the players I remembered most from my formative years of watching baseball. But this was not a year without controversy. This year also marked the final year Jack Morris was eligible for consideration. 75% of the vote is required for the induction; he received just north of 60%.
First and foremost, let me make some disclaimers. One: I was born in 1991. Jack Morris threw his last game in 1994. I never saw Morris pitch, and if I did, I would not remember it today. Anything I know about Morris is what I have read or seen in video. The sharp drops of his splitter would mean a whole lot more to me had I been around to see him pitch, to be sure. Now, I have to resort to looking objectively at stats as opposed to watching him live (which is much more boring).
Second disclaimer: I am a staunch Tigers fan, through and through. I feel I need to get that out of the way before I make the argument for Morris’s candidacy for the Hall of Fame. I’m sure there are people who could make just as valid arguments about players from 29 other teams, and I feel for them, as well. All I can say is that Jack Morris stands among the top in players missing out on the Hall. It is a travesty that he was not elected. Perhaps it is not as grossly unfair as Pete Rose’s situation, but quite tragic all the same.
Morris’s career was an illustrious one, to say the least. For 18 years, from 1977 to 1994, Jack Morris was winning games for four different ball clubs. The bulk of his time was spent in Detroit, but his final four years were spent in Minnesota, Toronto, and Cleveland. During this time, he was not simply the ace of a staff; he was arguably the best pitcher of the 1980s.
Impressive accolades begin to look like a laundry list. Morris was elected to five All-Star games and started three of them. He led three teams to four World Series championships, winning an impressive seven postseason games and boasting a sub-3.00 ERA in the World Series. In 1983, probably his most successful season, he led the league in strikeouts with 232 on his way to winning 20 games. The 1984 season picked up right where he left off with a no-hitter—in the fourth game of the season. This proved to be his first World Series year where we was a perfect 3-0 in the postseason. He led the league in wins in 1981 and 1992, an incredible eleven years apart. Perhaps most unbelievable was that 162 wins came in the 1980s, making him the winningest pitcher of the decade. 1 That bears repeating: no pitcher had more wins in the 1980s than Jack Morris.
So, why is he not Hall of Fame material? Several issues seem to hold him back. True, he never captured the elusive Cy Young trophy, given to the year’s best pitcher in each league. In his 1983 season, he finished 3rd in the voting, with a 27% share of the vote. This was the nearest he came to being a Cy Young winner. But surely the absence of this award does not outright merit exclusion from the Hall? A second complaint against his stats was a disappointingly high ERA. His ERA was never below 3.00 during the regular season. He simply faced a lot of batters and gave up a lot of runs. And with the elevated ERA naturally came more losses. In fact, his last six years, during which his ERA was at its highest, he had three losing seasons. His control suffered, too, throughout his years pitching. He led the league in wild pitches an amazing four times in the 1980s.
All in all, of course some of his stats could have been improved. But throughout his career, he consistently did two things: he threw a lot of innings and he won a lot of games. From 1979 to 1989, his lowest win total for a season was 14 games. And his durability was exceptional as well. He led the league in Innings Pitched in his spectacular 1983 season. Of his starts, nearly a third of them ended up complete games. Both of his wins in the 1984 World Series (Games 1 and 4) were complete games. This type of inning economy is rarely seen in baseball today.
The closest Morris came was in his 14th time on the ballot in 2013, when he received 67.7% of the vote, about 40 votes short. For a team as filled with history as the Detroit Tigers, it is a shame that not one player is recognized from their most recent championship. Alan Trammell, shortstop of that 1984 team, is still on the ballot for two more years, but his vote hovers around 20% or 30%. Then-manager, Sparky Anderson, was inducted in 2000, but as a Cincinnati Red. But that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that one of the most complete Tigers teams in history—leading the division from the first game of the season to the final game of the World Series—does not have a representative from the team in Hall of Fame. Jack Morris should have been that person.
1 By comparison, Nolan Ryan had 40 less wins during these years.↩
First and foremost, let me make some disclaimers. One: I was born in 1991. Jack Morris threw his last game in 1994. I never saw Morris pitch, and if I did, I would not remember it today. Anything I know about Morris is what I have read or seen in video. The sharp drops of his splitter would mean a whole lot more to me had I been around to see him pitch, to be sure. Now, I have to resort to looking objectively at stats as opposed to watching him live (which is much more boring).
Second disclaimer: I am a staunch Tigers fan, through and through. I feel I need to get that out of the way before I make the argument for Morris’s candidacy for the Hall of Fame. I’m sure there are people who could make just as valid arguments about players from 29 other teams, and I feel for them, as well. All I can say is that Jack Morris stands among the top in players missing out on the Hall. It is a travesty that he was not elected. Perhaps it is not as grossly unfair as Pete Rose’s situation, but quite tragic all the same.
Morris’s career was an illustrious one, to say the least. For 18 years, from 1977 to 1994, Jack Morris was winning games for four different ball clubs. The bulk of his time was spent in Detroit, but his final four years were spent in Minnesota, Toronto, and Cleveland. During this time, he was not simply the ace of a staff; he was arguably the best pitcher of the 1980s.
Impressive accolades begin to look like a laundry list. Morris was elected to five All-Star games and started three of them. He led three teams to four World Series championships, winning an impressive seven postseason games and boasting a sub-3.00 ERA in the World Series. In 1983, probably his most successful season, he led the league in strikeouts with 232 on his way to winning 20 games. The 1984 season picked up right where he left off with a no-hitter—in the fourth game of the season. This proved to be his first World Series year where we was a perfect 3-0 in the postseason. He led the league in wins in 1981 and 1992, an incredible eleven years apart. Perhaps most unbelievable was that 162 wins came in the 1980s, making him the winningest pitcher of the decade. 1 That bears repeating: no pitcher had more wins in the 1980s than Jack Morris.
So, why is he not Hall of Fame material? Several issues seem to hold him back. True, he never captured the elusive Cy Young trophy, given to the year’s best pitcher in each league. In his 1983 season, he finished 3rd in the voting, with a 27% share of the vote. This was the nearest he came to being a Cy Young winner. But surely the absence of this award does not outright merit exclusion from the Hall? A second complaint against his stats was a disappointingly high ERA. His ERA was never below 3.00 during the regular season. He simply faced a lot of batters and gave up a lot of runs. And with the elevated ERA naturally came more losses. In fact, his last six years, during which his ERA was at its highest, he had three losing seasons. His control suffered, too, throughout his years pitching. He led the league in wild pitches an amazing four times in the 1980s.
All in all, of course some of his stats could have been improved. But throughout his career, he consistently did two things: he threw a lot of innings and he won a lot of games. From 1979 to 1989, his lowest win total for a season was 14 games. And his durability was exceptional as well. He led the league in Innings Pitched in his spectacular 1983 season. Of his starts, nearly a third of them ended up complete games. Both of his wins in the 1984 World Series (Games 1 and 4) were complete games. This type of inning economy is rarely seen in baseball today.
The closest Morris came was in his 14th time on the ballot in 2013, when he received 67.7% of the vote, about 40 votes short. For a team as filled with history as the Detroit Tigers, it is a shame that not one player is recognized from their most recent championship. Alan Trammell, shortstop of that 1984 team, is still on the ballot for two more years, but his vote hovers around 20% or 30%. Then-manager, Sparky Anderson, was inducted in 2000, but as a Cincinnati Red. But that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that one of the most complete Tigers teams in history—leading the division from the first game of the season to the final game of the World Series—does not have a representative from the team in Hall of Fame. Jack Morris should have been that person.
1 By comparison, Nolan Ryan had 40 less wins during these years.↩
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Chvrch Music
At the beginning of this year, I was determined to try to keep up with as much new music as possible. My hope was that, by the end of the year, I could be somewhat knowledgeable in end-of-the-year discussions. It's a New Year's resolution I feel I try every year: to keep up with the times. Unfortunately, it was not easy to stay on track. Of course, other music--and other interests in general--took priority from time to time, and there was a lot of good music I missed as a result. Now, as I read lists around the Internet, what I missed has become very visible. But I definitely heard some excellent albums that I would not have gotten to otherwise. And none was more surprising or exciting than Chvrches' The Bones of What You Believe. Wow.
What could be expected from the three-piece electropop band from Scotland? Apparently, not much was expected. They essentially started the year in unknown obscurity with only a few singles and an EP that was a preview of the coming album. The album, while not necessarily an explosion into the mainstream, was an incredible debut nonetheless.
First off, this album is tremendously catchy. Is it wrong to claim that as a reason to enjoy an album? Possibly. But it's totally true. I put this album on daily for a month because it was such an enjoyable listen--without it becoming stale. It was to the point where one song would end, and I would already be eagerly anticipating the next song. On the brighter side of haunting, these are the types of songs that can get ingrained in your head for a day without even realizing it.
Not to mention, every song flows together effortlessly. The band sounds so much fuller than just three people. I realize that with the marvels of modern day mixing, we can have more than a typical number of sounds running simultaneously, but Chvrches utilizes an intense array of instruments, electronic sampling, and vocals that make them sound much more complete. Such a variety of sounds worked so well, all at once. I can't wait to see what else this band can do.
As is often the case when the center band member is female, it may seem easy to slap a sexist label on this band. Frontwoman, Lauren Mayberry, has certainly addressed this in a well crafted article, which was complete with responses to horrible messages on the band's Facebook page. But Chvrches transcends this feminist label. Accompanying vocals from the other two members of the band are wonderfully complementary. The dynamics of the band--how they work together--definitely make them a band to root for. A certain amount independence or even aggression is evident in early songs like, "We Sink", yet a perceived innocence shines through, for example, in the song, "Lungs." Truly, it is impossible not to fall in love with Mayberry after hearing such songs.
The Bones of What You Believe took me totally by surprise. I recognized the cover in a record store a week after it was released, but I did not give it much thought beyond that. After only a few listens, however, I was absolutely hooked. Without a doubt, it was the album I listened to most in 2013; I would also have to say it was my favorite. From the opening vocals of "The Mother We Share" to the Cure-esque guitars1 of album closer, "You Caught the Light," this album is an amazing ride.
1 I'm serious: 0:31-1:46 could be lifted right from Disintegration sessions.↩
What could be expected from the three-piece electropop band from Scotland? Apparently, not much was expected. They essentially started the year in unknown obscurity with only a few singles and an EP that was a preview of the coming album. The album, while not necessarily an explosion into the mainstream, was an incredible debut nonetheless.
First off, this album is tremendously catchy. Is it wrong to claim that as a reason to enjoy an album? Possibly. But it's totally true. I put this album on daily for a month because it was such an enjoyable listen--without it becoming stale. It was to the point where one song would end, and I would already be eagerly anticipating the next song. On the brighter side of haunting, these are the types of songs that can get ingrained in your head for a day without even realizing it.
Not to mention, every song flows together effortlessly. The band sounds so much fuller than just three people. I realize that with the marvels of modern day mixing, we can have more than a typical number of sounds running simultaneously, but Chvrches utilizes an intense array of instruments, electronic sampling, and vocals that make them sound much more complete. Such a variety of sounds worked so well, all at once. I can't wait to see what else this band can do.
As is often the case when the center band member is female, it may seem easy to slap a sexist label on this band. Frontwoman, Lauren Mayberry, has certainly addressed this in a well crafted article, which was complete with responses to horrible messages on the band's Facebook page. But Chvrches transcends this feminist label. Accompanying vocals from the other two members of the band are wonderfully complementary. The dynamics of the band--how they work together--definitely make them a band to root for. A certain amount independence or even aggression is evident in early songs like, "We Sink", yet a perceived innocence shines through, for example, in the song, "Lungs." Truly, it is impossible not to fall in love with Mayberry after hearing such songs.
The Bones of What You Believe took me totally by surprise. I recognized the cover in a record store a week after it was released, but I did not give it much thought beyond that. After only a few listens, however, I was absolutely hooked. Without a doubt, it was the album I listened to most in 2013; I would also have to say it was my favorite. From the opening vocals of "The Mother We Share" to the Cure-esque guitars1 of album closer, "You Caught the Light," this album is an amazing ride.
1 I'm serious: 0:31-1:46 could be lifted right from Disintegration sessions.↩
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)