The Detroit Pistons have the potential to be best team in Detroit this season. Unlike the Tigers and (possibly) the Lions, the Pistons have a chance to make the playoffs, and unlike the Red Wings they have a chance to go far. They are coming off their first playoff berth since 2009 (and really, the first successful season since 2008). For the most part, they are returning the same team as last year. Basketball is such an intimate team sport; there weren’t any additions that could disrupt the rhythm of the players. But the changes they did make should give them some more depth at a couple positions.
We’ll start with the positives: the Pistons have a returning core of Andre Drummond (C), Marcus Morris (PF), Tobias Harris (SF), Kentavious Caldwell-Pope (SG), and Reggie Jackson (PG) which could be one of the best starting fives in the country. Seriously. When these five guys are all playing well, they can be competitive with any team, proving why they can be one of the best teams in the conference.
The Pistons are getting a size upgrade as well. A relatively small team last season, Andre Drummond and Aron Baynes got some help with Boban Marjanovic and Jon Leuer. Boban also brings a year of experience under Gregg Popovich. Hopefully, he can spread some of that coaching genius. Detroit also retained both of their draft picks, Henry Ellenson and Michael Gbinije.
Possibly the biggest downside is Jackson opening the season with a knee injury. There is a chance he might not see the court until December, so the Pistons will have to make do without a top point guard for the first six weeks. Not only that, but Detroit will lose one stable source of three-point shots, and they struggled from three-point range last year. They patched the hole somewhat by signing Ish Smith and (late pick-up) Beno Udrih, and Caldwell-Pope and Stanley Johnson can take some trips at point guard, but it will be nice to get Jackson back in the lineup.
Also, I’m a little concerned with Andre Drummond’s contract signing, up $20 million from last year. Don’t get me wrong: I’m happy to lock up the best rebounder in the league. But he is an expensive center in an increasingly shooting guard league. Also, it’s bittersweet to hand over five million dollars to yearly-joke Josh Smith for another year. The good news is it’s one more year off the monster contract (holding the Pistons to $27 million until 2020); the bad news is it’s $5,400,000 the Pistons don’t get to use this year (and next year, and the year after, and the year after). I don’t know how they pay him, but I hope it’s in the form of a giant check with “Thanks for nothing” in the memo line.
So, the Pistons did not make an drastic improvements, instead sticking with the solid core of last year. How does that make them better off than last year? Basically, I wasn’t impressed with many other teams in the East over the offseason, with the possible exception of Indiana. The teams at the top--Cleveland, Toronto, and Boston--stayed there or got better. Atlanta and Orlando got a bit worse. Chicago, New York, and Washington all confuse me. If the Pistons can play at the same level as last season, I think even the same W/L record will earn a sixth spot where last year it was only good for eighth.
Vegas has set the odds for the Pistons’ win total at 45.5 wins. This might be too high. Nate Silver’s ESPN subsidiary, FiveThirtyEight puts them at 39-43. For a team that finished 44-38 last season, this might be too low. As for the 2016-17 campaign, I really like them somewhere right around .500 or just above. And if they do surpass their record from last year, 46 or 47 wins should make them a very likely candidate for that fourth spot in the Eastern Conference. After the Cavs, the Raptors, and the Celtics, Detroit should at least be looking at one of the remaining playoff seeds. I am ready to watch some DE-TROIT BAS-KET-BALL!
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Monday, October 17, 2016
Bob Dylan, Author
Earlier this week, Bob Dylan was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. This was naturally a very controversial decision in the literary community. Dylan entered the nomination process with the low odds of winning--because of course you can bet on the Nobel Prize--set at 50 to 1. His mere appearance in the probabilities was considered laughable by most experts; however, Bob Dylan defied his slim odds. Now, many of those experts are not happy with the academy’s decision.
In the opinion of many, the selection of Bob Dylan gives short shrift to many equally qualified poets and novelists. The award is ostensibly intended for the person who contributes the most literary merit. As with most sides of our culture anymore, the award has become overly politicized, but the intention remains the same. At the very least, the Nobel Prize in Literature is representative of high-quality literature. So what is the issue with Dylan? Why are critics so up in arms about his qualifications?
The most obvious complaint is that Dylan is ‘just a musician.’ Some would say that he has no business being compared to the eminent authors of today, or (my favorite) that he should refuse the award in favor of someone more qualified. Ridiculous. In what world is writing music not considered literature? Sure, music may not be the traditional concept of a prosaic novel, but music is no different from poetry, in that it is lines of words assembled to tell a message. Moreover, music is typically performed; a musician performing at a coffee shop is hardly different from the poet who reads his or her work at the same coffee shop. The Prize has been awarded to people who produced more or less exclusively poetry. So until I hear a definition that clearly separates poetry from music, I refuse to accept that being a musician immediately disqualifies one for the award. Reducing to Bob Dylan to just a musician and claiming he is unworthy of the award is absurd.
The next, slightly more acceptable argument is that Bob Dylan’s quality of work is not on par with some of the other authors up for the award. The reason this argument is more acceptable is simple: it is perfectly fine not to like someone’s artistic output. But to claim that he does not deserve an award because his work is not appreciated is not a valid argument. For one, regardless of his style of music or his vocal talents, several of his songs became emblematic of specific times in our history as a country. Besides, this subjective nature arises with any and every award. There will be disagreements with any choice, but these do not invalidate the recipient. Was The Heist really the best rap album of 2014? Exactly.
Finally, we have the sheer length of Bob Dylan’s career. This is not so much an argument, inasmuch as there is not a lot of room for disagreement. He has been actively recording for music for an astounding fifty years. Half a century! Over the course of his career, he has put out at least three (probably more like six) of the most important albums in the history of American music. This is not really much of an overstatement, either. Few recording artists can demonstrate such a consistency of releases over such a long period of time.
This year’s Nobel Prize in Literature was unique. It is the equivalent of a particularly cinematic video game being considered for an Oscar (which I would also defend). The fact that this is the first time it has been awarded to a musician is special. But for the first choice of musicians, Bob Dylan is certainly an exceptional one.
In the opinion of many, the selection of Bob Dylan gives short shrift to many equally qualified poets and novelists. The award is ostensibly intended for the person who contributes the most literary merit. As with most sides of our culture anymore, the award has become overly politicized, but the intention remains the same. At the very least, the Nobel Prize in Literature is representative of high-quality literature. So what is the issue with Dylan? Why are critics so up in arms about his qualifications?
The most obvious complaint is that Dylan is ‘just a musician.’ Some would say that he has no business being compared to the eminent authors of today, or (my favorite) that he should refuse the award in favor of someone more qualified. Ridiculous. In what world is writing music not considered literature? Sure, music may not be the traditional concept of a prosaic novel, but music is no different from poetry, in that it is lines of words assembled to tell a message. Moreover, music is typically performed; a musician performing at a coffee shop is hardly different from the poet who reads his or her work at the same coffee shop. The Prize has been awarded to people who produced more or less exclusively poetry. So until I hear a definition that clearly separates poetry from music, I refuse to accept that being a musician immediately disqualifies one for the award. Reducing to Bob Dylan to just a musician and claiming he is unworthy of the award is absurd.
The next, slightly more acceptable argument is that Bob Dylan’s quality of work is not on par with some of the other authors up for the award. The reason this argument is more acceptable is simple: it is perfectly fine not to like someone’s artistic output. But to claim that he does not deserve an award because his work is not appreciated is not a valid argument. For one, regardless of his style of music or his vocal talents, several of his songs became emblematic of specific times in our history as a country. Besides, this subjective nature arises with any and every award. There will be disagreements with any choice, but these do not invalidate the recipient. Was The Heist really the best rap album of 2014? Exactly.
Finally, we have the sheer length of Bob Dylan’s career. This is not so much an argument, inasmuch as there is not a lot of room for disagreement. He has been actively recording for music for an astounding fifty years. Half a century! Over the course of his career, he has put out at least three (probably more like six) of the most important albums in the history of American music. This is not really much of an overstatement, either. Few recording artists can demonstrate such a consistency of releases over such a long period of time.
This year’s Nobel Prize in Literature was unique. It is the equivalent of a particularly cinematic video game being considered for an Oscar (which I would also defend). The fact that this is the first time it has been awarded to a musician is special. But for the first choice of musicians, Bob Dylan is certainly an exceptional one.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
2016 Detroit Lions Season Preview
The NFL preseason is mercifully over. We have now entered the purgatory between preseason's last drive and kickoff of the first game. Fans can start making safe guesses about which players gave enough to make the regular team and who might have missed out. The Detroit Lions finished their four games against a middling AFC North division (sans Cleveland; plus Buffalo) with comfortable 2-2 record. I didn't watch all of them--it is still the preseason after all--but I caught some action here and there. And naturally, I have some thoughts as the Lions enter the 2016 campaign.
First, of course, many eyes will be on the wide receiving core, now less the future Hall-of-Famer Calvin Johnson. That has been the story for much of the off-season, both in Lions-centric publications and at the national level. It's true: losing one of the Lions' best offensive weapons and truly one of the best receivers in the league leaves quite a large gap in that offense.
Actually, though, Detroit has done an effective job turning the offense for the better. To complement the already exciting backfield of Ameer Abdullah and Theo Riddick (one of the best receiving backs in the league), the team has added veteran wideouts Marvin Jones, Anquan Boldin, and Andre Roberts. Rookie Dwayne Washington excited fans during the preseason. Not to mention, Golden Tate, who will be the primary target after Johnson’s retirement, has the potential for his second 1,000 yard season. Matthew Stafford is a solid quarterback with some terrific weapons.
The issue, however, is in the offensive and defensive lines. Stafford may be good, but no one can expect him to win many games if he is constantly under pressure. He has been sacked an astounding 89 times in the last two seasons. The defense has not been much more impressive, in the bottom third in points allowed. There have been some improvements in the lines--notably Taylor Decker, an offensive tackle drafted in the first round--but I worry that may not be enough.
It may be telling that the most exciting part of last season was a shakeup in the front office. Mid-season hire and media darling Jim Bob Cooter shook up the team as the offensive coordinator, and I cannot wait to see what he has done with the offense in the offseason. And Bob Quinn, former scout for New England, is heading into his first full season as Detroit general manager. His popularity with Lions fans rose during the draft, and it’s always nice to get some Patriot blood in an organization. One of the only remaining pieces from (abysmal) years past, is head coach Jim Caldwell. The head coach position could stand to be freshened up, so I think (read: hope) he is on a short leash for the upcoming year.
As of this writing, the over/under is set at 7.5 wins for Detroit. That seems fair to me. By my count, I see at least seven winnable games, with--I imagine--plus or minus two that they should win (but blow late) or have no business winning (and catch a lucky break). It is the NFL after all! The Lions should have no problem doing exactly as well as last year to finish 7-9. Honestly, they should have won more than seven games last year. Despite playing six games in a tough NFC North division, their non-divisional schedule is against a weakened NFC East and an even weaker AFC South. Does Detroit have the pieces to win their first ever Super Bowl? Of course not. Can they make the Playoffs? Still questionable. The way I see it, the Lions will be in competition for a wild card spot with the Minnesota Vikings. I can only hope that competition remains close.
In any case, I’ll be watching. Go Lions!
First, of course, many eyes will be on the wide receiving core, now less the future Hall-of-Famer Calvin Johnson. That has been the story for much of the off-season, both in Lions-centric publications and at the national level. It's true: losing one of the Lions' best offensive weapons and truly one of the best receivers in the league leaves quite a large gap in that offense.
Actually, though, Detroit has done an effective job turning the offense for the better. To complement the already exciting backfield of Ameer Abdullah and Theo Riddick (one of the best receiving backs in the league), the team has added veteran wideouts Marvin Jones, Anquan Boldin, and Andre Roberts. Rookie Dwayne Washington excited fans during the preseason. Not to mention, Golden Tate, who will be the primary target after Johnson’s retirement, has the potential for his second 1,000 yard season. Matthew Stafford is a solid quarterback with some terrific weapons.
The issue, however, is in the offensive and defensive lines. Stafford may be good, but no one can expect him to win many games if he is constantly under pressure. He has been sacked an astounding 89 times in the last two seasons. The defense has not been much more impressive, in the bottom third in points allowed. There have been some improvements in the lines--notably Taylor Decker, an offensive tackle drafted in the first round--but I worry that may not be enough.
It may be telling that the most exciting part of last season was a shakeup in the front office. Mid-season hire and media darling Jim Bob Cooter shook up the team as the offensive coordinator, and I cannot wait to see what he has done with the offense in the offseason. And Bob Quinn, former scout for New England, is heading into his first full season as Detroit general manager. His popularity with Lions fans rose during the draft, and it’s always nice to get some Patriot blood in an organization. One of the only remaining pieces from (abysmal) years past, is head coach Jim Caldwell. The head coach position could stand to be freshened up, so I think (read: hope) he is on a short leash for the upcoming year.
As of this writing, the over/under is set at 7.5 wins for Detroit. That seems fair to me. By my count, I see at least seven winnable games, with--I imagine--plus or minus two that they should win (but blow late) or have no business winning (and catch a lucky break). It is the NFL after all! The Lions should have no problem doing exactly as well as last year to finish 7-9. Honestly, they should have won more than seven games last year. Despite playing six games in a tough NFC North division, their non-divisional schedule is against a weakened NFC East and an even weaker AFC South. Does Detroit have the pieces to win their first ever Super Bowl? Of course not. Can they make the Playoffs? Still questionable. The way I see it, the Lions will be in competition for a wild card spot with the Minnesota Vikings. I can only hope that competition remains close.
In any case, I’ll be watching. Go Lions!
Thursday, August 18, 2016
This Inevitable Schedule-gate
The Boston Red Sox are surging. They have won six straight games and stand a good chance to make the playoffs, either by winning the American League East or one of the two Wild Card spots. The Detroit Tigers, meanwhile, are faltering, dropping eight of their last ten and slipping further back from that second Wild Card spot. But, to add insult to injury, today's game is now a scheme by the city of Detroit to "mess with" the Boston Red Sox. Wha-...?
I'll get to the facts first, just so we're all on the same page. The Red Sox played a game last night that went late due to rain delays. Due for an early flight to Detroit, they allegedly requested a move from an afternoon start to an evening start. Sound like a simple request? Unfortunately the Lions, who play across the street from the Tigers, have a preseason game scheduled for the same time, which would cause a traffic and logistics backlog in the city. So today's game on the 2016 Major League Baseball schedule, established over a year ago, will have to suffice.
Except the fans won't stand for it. After fans took notice to the tragedy, articles started cropping up about how the Tigers are purposely doing this to hamstring the Red Sox. Just like that, the Tigers are unwittingly forced into a heel turn.
Here's my trajectory: I woke up and read about the conflict, and dismissed it with a "What? Huh." But the more I thought of it, the more it just didn't make sense. To use such aggressive language--the Tigers are "manipulating" the schedule--is simply unfair. I drove to work in silence, becoming more upset by the mile. I mean, to even consider that this is an intentional way to gain an advantage is absolutely absurd. I checked some more articles only to find distraught Sox fans seeking a little payback and revenge for the way they've been mistreated1. By now, I'm just about irate and have been seething ever since.
For me, I've just had enough with feeling sorry for Boston sports teams. Nothing is ever their fault when things go wrong, and yet their teams have won nearly a dozen championships in the last two decades. I'm sorry; you don't get to be the underdog and the champion too. We can only hope this will balloon into a Deflategate-esque saga so we can witness how persecuted the city of Boston is by another major sports league. Please, Red Sox Nation, you are not maligned, and no one outside of Massachusetts thinks you are.
Most Boston sports fans--self-named "Massholes"--will say that sports are just different in the northeast. They just love their teams so passionately that (of course) the rest of the country would take offense to it. Also, all Boston teams are successful with recent championships so (of course) it's popular for the rest of the country to dislike them. I’m sure everyone’s heard the “Don’t hate us ‘cause we’ve got the rings!” defense. It's always Boston versus the world. Right? Well, I disagree. I have no problems with championship teams, but I do have a problem with excuses that turn very public (and largely unfounded). Celtics fans pulled similar excuses last season when they nearly handed the Warriors their first loss. No, you cannot force me to feel sorry.
I know what all of this sounds like. Believe me: I’ve read it all from stuck-up Sox fans this morning on Twitter. The Tigers are on a losing streak, punctuated by a horrendous loss last night after destroying a one-hit shutout effort from the starting pitcher, Anibal Sanchez. So, I must be bitter? Well, sure, I don’t like the losses, but last night was last night, and I’m looking to move on. Or maybe I’m still upset about the loss in the 2013 American League Championship Series? Yeah, that was the most crushing experience of my time watching baseball, but it has no bearing on today. This has nothing to do with the past; it has to do with journalists and fans attacking my favorite team without reason. It bothers me, so I’d like to defend them.
The way I see it, there are two ways this can play out2, and neither of them are pretty. A) the Tigers win today, and Red Sox Nation complains that the game was not on a fair plane. Or B) the Sox win today, and the Tigers suffer yet another humiliating defeat (I mean, they did get to sleep in this morning). In either case, the Tigers are in a no-win position. What would make it better? Detroit could offer to play without a shortstop, or maybe even start every at bat with an 0-1 count. Would that help? Maybe Red Sox Nation could get the NFL to move the Lions game to tomorrow? To be sure, the NFL owes the people of Boston something as well. For what it's worth, I hope the Tigers win by 40. They're already the villains, apparently; they might as well win big. Go Tigers.
1 To be fair, Tigers fans are also claiming the "Suck it up: you're a professional ballplayer, so you should be able to play in these conditions" stance. I'm not too proud to see my fellow fans sinking to this level, but hey, this whole thing's a mess.↩
2 The third way was that the game actually got moved to the evening, which would have proved whining always wins.↩
I'll get to the facts first, just so we're all on the same page. The Red Sox played a game last night that went late due to rain delays. Due for an early flight to Detroit, they allegedly requested a move from an afternoon start to an evening start. Sound like a simple request? Unfortunately the Lions, who play across the street from the Tigers, have a preseason game scheduled for the same time, which would cause a traffic and logistics backlog in the city. So today's game on the 2016 Major League Baseball schedule, established over a year ago, will have to suffice.
Except the fans won't stand for it. After fans took notice to the tragedy, articles started cropping up about how the Tigers are purposely doing this to hamstring the Red Sox. Just like that, the Tigers are unwittingly forced into a heel turn.
Here's my trajectory: I woke up and read about the conflict, and dismissed it with a "What? Huh." But the more I thought of it, the more it just didn't make sense. To use such aggressive language--the Tigers are "manipulating" the schedule--is simply unfair. I drove to work in silence, becoming more upset by the mile. I mean, to even consider that this is an intentional way to gain an advantage is absolutely absurd. I checked some more articles only to find distraught Sox fans seeking a little payback and revenge for the way they've been mistreated1. By now, I'm just about irate and have been seething ever since.
For me, I've just had enough with feeling sorry for Boston sports teams. Nothing is ever their fault when things go wrong, and yet their teams have won nearly a dozen championships in the last two decades. I'm sorry; you don't get to be the underdog and the champion too. We can only hope this will balloon into a Deflategate-esque saga so we can witness how persecuted the city of Boston is by another major sports league. Please, Red Sox Nation, you are not maligned, and no one outside of Massachusetts thinks you are.
Most Boston sports fans--self-named "Massholes"--will say that sports are just different in the northeast. They just love their teams so passionately that (of course) the rest of the country would take offense to it. Also, all Boston teams are successful with recent championships so (of course) it's popular for the rest of the country to dislike them. I’m sure everyone’s heard the “Don’t hate us ‘cause we’ve got the rings!” defense. It's always Boston versus the world. Right? Well, I disagree. I have no problems with championship teams, but I do have a problem with excuses that turn very public (and largely unfounded). Celtics fans pulled similar excuses last season when they nearly handed the Warriors their first loss. No, you cannot force me to feel sorry.
I know what all of this sounds like. Believe me: I’ve read it all from stuck-up Sox fans this morning on Twitter. The Tigers are on a losing streak, punctuated by a horrendous loss last night after destroying a one-hit shutout effort from the starting pitcher, Anibal Sanchez. So, I must be bitter? Well, sure, I don’t like the losses, but last night was last night, and I’m looking to move on. Or maybe I’m still upset about the loss in the 2013 American League Championship Series? Yeah, that was the most crushing experience of my time watching baseball, but it has no bearing on today. This has nothing to do with the past; it has to do with journalists and fans attacking my favorite team without reason. It bothers me, so I’d like to defend them.
The way I see it, there are two ways this can play out2, and neither of them are pretty. A) the Tigers win today, and Red Sox Nation complains that the game was not on a fair plane. Or B) the Sox win today, and the Tigers suffer yet another humiliating defeat (I mean, they did get to sleep in this morning). In either case, the Tigers are in a no-win position. What would make it better? Detroit could offer to play without a shortstop, or maybe even start every at bat with an 0-1 count. Would that help? Maybe Red Sox Nation could get the NFL to move the Lions game to tomorrow? To be sure, the NFL owes the people of Boston something as well. For what it's worth, I hope the Tigers win by 40. They're already the villains, apparently; they might as well win big. Go Tigers.
1 To be fair, Tigers fans are also claiming the "Suck it up: you're a professional ballplayer, so you should be able to play in these conditions" stance. I'm not too proud to see my fellow fans sinking to this level, but hey, this whole thing's a mess.↩
2 The third way was that the game actually got moved to the evening, which would have proved whining always wins.↩
Sunday, July 31, 2016
The Good News of blink-182
I am a complete apologist for blink-182. In my eyes, they can do nothing wrong. I will listen to anything and everything they release--usually arguing for its worth. Here’s the thing, though: I know that they are just an average band to most people, all things considered. Some may not even consider blink-182 a great band in the canon of punk music. But that doesn’t matter to me. For better or for worse, barring some catastrophic stretch of bad albums, blink-182 will forever be my favorite band.
I realize that this sounds like a ridiculous, dumb claim, pure hyperbole, but I can’t help it. Believe me, I’ve thought it over, and it’s not as crazy as it scans. I’m not saying that they are the only band I will ever voluntarily listen to for the rest of my life. Sure, there will be long stretches of time when I will be obsessed with another band or even genre. But blink’s music will always be there for me when I return. And I always return. Typically right on schedule, around June.
Let’s get some things out of the way: first, they are an absurdly juvenile band, whose combination of bathroom humor and coarse language almost definitely does not hold up in comparison to today’s music. Admittedly, it would be daunting to decide today, right now, that you were going to get into blink. You would have to wade through a lot of childish humor that was genuinely fun when you were in junior high. But that’s not why I come back to blink-182.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you already know some songs by blink-182. They are responsible for some colossal hits that really transcend punk music. Catchy beach songs that high school and college students will (probably?) play forever out of cars and dorm windows. Songs that are perfect for the summer, like “All the Small Things” and “First Date.” But along with the goofy tracks come the emotional ones, as in “Adam’s Song” and “Stay Together for the Kids.” Chances are, even if you haven’t been paying close attention to surf pop punk for the last twenty-five years, you know these and other songs from the Greatest Hits catalogue. As with any single, these songs are hugely important in initiating the uninitiated.
To answer the question about recommended listening to digest the band, I used to say that Enema of the State was their most popular album, Take Off Your Pants and Jacket was my favorite album, and their self-titled was technically their best album. This statement is, of course, pure nonsense. The fact is, I spent so much time with these albums that I have on blinders and cannot be trusted to recommend just any of their songs. I would love to spend some time going discussing every album (and truthfully, I considered it; I could probably spend a few hundred words on each one), but I decided against it. I will say, you can't go wrong with any album before their hiatus in 2005, and certainly the aforementioned three should not be passed up.
Now, in 2016, we arrive at their newest full-length, California. There are (valid) complaints to be made. It is the very first album to not feature Tom DeLonge--who makes up literally ⅓ of the band, and some would argue means a lot more to the band. Replaced by Alkaline Trio-frontman, Matt Skiba, DeLonge has left to pursue his own devices, which involve (as any blink-pessimist will gladly inform you) legitimately searching for extraterrestrial life. But here’s the thing: Skiba (and his other band for that matter) is actually a great musician. At times, of course it is very easy to miss DeLonge's voice. In fact, on my first listen-through, his absence was always in the back of my mind. But Skiba proves to a very apt replacement.
For what it’s worth, California is a really cool album. I’ve even been heard saying that it’s a perfect record (for them right now). That last bit is important: it’s perfect for them right now. Is it their best album? Far from it. It may not even be in my top five. But for what they are right now--a collection of forty-something pop musicians who rely on a lot of cheap juvenile jokes for popularity--this album sounds just right for the middle of their third decade. The music is still cool; the jokes are still there. They wear their influences on their sleeve. At times, they shred like an early Black Flag record; other times, they proudly showcase their self-proclaimed heroes, the Cure.
I love blink-182, but I can't convince you to love them. All I hope to do is raise some sort of appreciation for a band who is past their prime. They may make (admittedly) generic pop-punk music with crass jokes that are (definitely) less funny now than they were then. But there is something special about them. It's a mistake to take them too seriously, and when they take themselves too seriously is them at their weakest. On the other hand, there are some really terrific tracks on some really fantastic albums, and a lot of fun to be had along the way.
I realize that this sounds like a ridiculous, dumb claim, pure hyperbole, but I can’t help it. Believe me, I’ve thought it over, and it’s not as crazy as it scans. I’m not saying that they are the only band I will ever voluntarily listen to for the rest of my life. Sure, there will be long stretches of time when I will be obsessed with another band or even genre. But blink’s music will always be there for me when I return. And I always return. Typically right on schedule, around June.
Let’s get some things out of the way: first, they are an absurdly juvenile band, whose combination of bathroom humor and coarse language almost definitely does not hold up in comparison to today’s music. Admittedly, it would be daunting to decide today, right now, that you were going to get into blink. You would have to wade through a lot of childish humor that was genuinely fun when you were in junior high. But that’s not why I come back to blink-182.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you already know some songs by blink-182. They are responsible for some colossal hits that really transcend punk music. Catchy beach songs that high school and college students will (probably?) play forever out of cars and dorm windows. Songs that are perfect for the summer, like “All the Small Things” and “First Date.” But along with the goofy tracks come the emotional ones, as in “Adam’s Song” and “Stay Together for the Kids.” Chances are, even if you haven’t been paying close attention to surf pop punk for the last twenty-five years, you know these and other songs from the Greatest Hits catalogue. As with any single, these songs are hugely important in initiating the uninitiated.
To answer the question about recommended listening to digest the band, I used to say that Enema of the State was their most popular album, Take Off Your Pants and Jacket was my favorite album, and their self-titled was technically their best album. This statement is, of course, pure nonsense. The fact is, I spent so much time with these albums that I have on blinders and cannot be trusted to recommend just any of their songs. I would love to spend some time going discussing every album (and truthfully, I considered it; I could probably spend a few hundred words on each one), but I decided against it. I will say, you can't go wrong with any album before their hiatus in 2005, and certainly the aforementioned three should not be passed up.
Now, in 2016, we arrive at their newest full-length, California. There are (valid) complaints to be made. It is the very first album to not feature Tom DeLonge--who makes up literally ⅓ of the band, and some would argue means a lot more to the band. Replaced by Alkaline Trio-frontman, Matt Skiba, DeLonge has left to pursue his own devices, which involve (as any blink-pessimist will gladly inform you) legitimately searching for extraterrestrial life. But here’s the thing: Skiba (and his other band for that matter) is actually a great musician. At times, of course it is very easy to miss DeLonge's voice. In fact, on my first listen-through, his absence was always in the back of my mind. But Skiba proves to a very apt replacement.
For what it’s worth, California is a really cool album. I’ve even been heard saying that it’s a perfect record (for them right now). That last bit is important: it’s perfect for them right now. Is it their best album? Far from it. It may not even be in my top five. But for what they are right now--a collection of forty-something pop musicians who rely on a lot of cheap juvenile jokes for popularity--this album sounds just right for the middle of their third decade. The music is still cool; the jokes are still there. They wear their influences on their sleeve. At times, they shred like an early Black Flag record; other times, they proudly showcase their self-proclaimed heroes, the Cure.
I love blink-182, but I can't convince you to love them. All I hope to do is raise some sort of appreciation for a band who is past their prime. They may make (admittedly) generic pop-punk music with crass jokes that are (definitely) less funny now than they were then. But there is something special about them. It's a mistake to take them too seriously, and when they take themselves too seriously is them at their weakest. On the other hand, there are some really terrific tracks on some really fantastic albums, and a lot of fun to be had along the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)