I decided to see it for myself. I saw it, I thought about it and reached some conclusions that you can find here along with excerpts from my four favorite reviews of the movie.

Buy this book.

Thanks.

Well, let it never be said that the American Left's very own Leni Riefenstahl isn't generous: he says he doesn't care if people pirate copies of his movies. My guess is that it's because he's already a multimillionaire and doesn't really care if he hurts distributors or movie theater owners.

While watching the pirate copy of what may turn out to be the crypto-fascist Left's very own "Triumph of the Will," (i.e. the pseudo-"documentary" movie that drives them into power based on deception and hatred), you might as well check out the new Fahrenheit Facts weblog, devoted to documenting the many outright fabrications and falsehoods in the movie.

(Both links via Bryan on his weblog.)

If so, Kevin has a question: What kind of book person are you?

Go let him know.

It's nice to see that at least some people on the left are showing some intellectual integrity.

Michael Moore has become the Left's very own Leni Riefenstahl. Pass it on.

(Via Winds of Change.)

Jeff Quinton has two interesting lists: the top-grossing movies of all time in terms of raw dollars earned, and the top-grossing movies adjusted for inflation.

I find the second list more instructive. :-)

Here's a lesson more webloggers should learn: Brevity is the soul of wit.

Roger Ebert agrees with filmmaker Michael Moore's politics and he makes no bones about it. But what he has disagreed with in the past has been the accuracy in Moore's films. And he contends it's no big deal at all that a documentary is partisan or nonobjective...but it must be accurate. He raise and articulates some interesting issues...

UPDATE: That Colored Fellas Weblog (real name of blog so don't email me) has a contest to see who can come closest to predicting the controversial Moore film's first weekend gross. Details are here (and if you put aside whatever your feelings are and take a guess and win you win some of TCFW's CDs from his former musical career!:

(NOTE: Since registration was required to get to the original I have revised this to make it a bit more complete)

First there were the reporting scandals at newspapers. Now this:

(The Chicago-based) Tribune Co.'s Newsday newspaper (NOTE to readers: this company also owns the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles
Times and some other papers) admitted Thursday that it had substantially overstated its daily and Sunday circulation.

The paper's disclosure marked the second time this week that a Chicago-based newspaper company had confessed to large-scale exaggeration of the number of copies that its readers were buying.

Because the fees newspapers charge their advertisers are based on the number of readers the ads reach, overstating circulation cheats advertisers.

In fact, Newsday's advertisers had filed federal civil fraud charges against the paper in mid-February, alleging that the paper, based on New York's Long Island, had "secretly and fraudulently padded and inflated the circulation figures" on which ad rates were based.

The suit, which has sparked an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, asserted that Newsday's alleged "scheme" employed a variety of strategies designed to minimize the number of returned unsold copies.

And there's more:

On Tuesday, the Chicago Tribune's crosstown rival, the Chicago Sun-Times, shocked advertisers by disclosing that an internal audit discovered the tabloid has for a number of years significantly overstated its circulation. The newspaper has so far provided few details.

In the wake of the Sun-Times' disclosure, shares of its parent, Hollinger International Inc., dropped nearly 10 percent.

"It's always serious when a newspaper is found to be inflating circulation," said independent newspaper consultant John Morton. "It's akin to theft."

We need a watchdog to watch society's watchdogs....

A banker who gives advice people love to take.

So I see that Phish has disbanded. They've been the most popular group on the Jam Band scene ever since the Grateful Dead disbanded.

Honestly I never was all that big a fan of their work. They had a few good recordings but their work always struck me as less interesting than some of the artists working in that genre (if you can call it a genre, it's so diverse). I always enjoyed groups like Widespread Panic and Govt Mule a good deal more. I hope this also means that some of the groups struggling to break out and be recognized, like Jupiter Coyote, have a chance to find a new fan base.

Ever found yourself listening to the radio and wondering what the heck the title and artist of a particular song is--and they don't say it? Or you miss it?

Here's the solution for that.

Pretty cool eh?

(Via my buddy Ed Wagner.)

The authors of the conservative "Thinks Too Much" weblog propose reviving the Hollywood blacklists in order to excoriate members of the media who say outrageously hateful things about America and its leaders.

This is a bad idea.

Mind you, it's not like the left doesn't have its own blacklists; indeed, many on the left do have lists of people and organizations who repel them. I'm aware of more than one left-wing organization that maintains lists of conservative Christian organizations and leaders they don't like, gun-rights advocates they don't like, and so on. And honestly, if someone just wants to keep a list of people who espouse beliefs they find repugnant, well, that's their right as Americans. Left, right, or center, if you want to keep a list you can.

But conservatives, who tend to revere Reagan, should remember that Ronald Reagan dedicated a large portion of his career to fighting the Hollywood blacklists. He found them repugnant and unAmerican. In his years as head of the Screen Actor's Guild, he spend much of his time fighting against the blacklists---both to get people off of them, and to get the practice ended. He spent as much or more time on that as he did fighting communist infiltration of SAG and the other Hollywood unions.

And yes, by the way, it's more than possible to do both. Indeed, his position as a staunch anti-communist made him particularly credible as an opponent of the blacklists.

Reagan was a dedicated opponent of Communism. He saw firsthand the violence and dishonesty of the Communists who were infiltrating the unions in Hollywood---and despite what many people think, communist infiltration of Hollywood was quite widespread. Windows broken, arms broken, cars set aflame, lives threatened--all of this was practiced by Hollywood communists. Reagan himself had his life threatened, and also had threats to throw acid on his face to end his career. It was a nasty business, and it's too bad that so many people today have come to think of the Hollywood communists as a bunch of starry-eyed idealists. No, they were Stalinists, were often quite brutal thugs, and many of them were definitely engaged in clandestine efforts to take over the unions and insert Stalinist propaganda into the movies.

But Reagan also opposed blacklisting anyone: his view was that hurting someone's career simply because of what he believed was wrong. His objection to the Communists was their use of subtrefuge and their frequent use of violence. People who did not advocate or practice violence, people who were out in the open about what they believed, should be left alone. And Reagan was, in fact, instrumental in ending the blacklists in Hollywood.

I can't support blacklisting people. Making note of whatever vile, hateful, stupid, or inaccurate things, that's fine. The solution to speech that's vile is always the same: more free speech.

Film maker Michael Moore is now taking on someone besides President George W. Bush. Now he's set his sights to political undermine Brtish Prime Minister Tony Blair, recently shown politically vulnerable in local elections in England.

In a highly thoughtful analysis, he says this:"I personally hold Blair more responsible for this war in Iraq than I do George W. Bush, and the reason is Blair knows better. Blair is not an idiot. What is he doing hanging around this guy?"

First there was the informative website. And now there's the movie.

He needs to be retired. Now. Yesterday.

I have been remiss in not making note of the death of one of America's true national treaures. Ray Charles has passed away.

I particularly liked Juliette's tribute. I'll add one thought though:

People like Ray Charles aren't supposed to die. That's just plain wrong.

A big controversy has erupted between Air America's showcase talk show host comedian Al Franken and the increasingly popular libertarian radio talk show host Neil Boortz. Various blogs on the right and left are taking sides in the who-said-what dispute.

The best way to find out? Listen to it yourself. I just did and found it great radio (I liked both of them, actually) and think declaration of a victor is in the ear of the beholder.

If you want to hear the (long) segment click here which will take you to the Air America site which gives you various listening options. I clicked on the underlined "here" in the first line, which allowed me to listen to this long, complete segment.

Yes, Michael Moore's now (in)famous award-winning film about George Bush, 911, Iraq and the Bush administration has finally found a distributor and will be DEFINITELY coming soon to a theater near you.. You can even see the film trailer online.

But now Michael Moore is being Michael Moored -- the target of an undaunting filmmaker who is trying fruitlessly to get an interview with MM and doing his own expose, on MM's films and their accuracy.

Oliver Willis has it totally right...so The Moderate Voice will reproduce his comments then offer his own rant. First Oliver, one of the Internet's most perceptive liberal bloggers:

So I was watching Dateline's ratings-whore of an interview with OJ "Knife" Simpson last night, and I could barely keep down my lunch. Here's a guy who (literally) got away with murder and he's living the life of luxury down in Florida. What's even more disgusting is that he has essentially bought into the belief that he's the center of the universe, and sees nothing wrong with flaunting himself as a womanizer - even though that's the same macho path that set him on the road to murder.

OJ also has a very convenient "blackness". In the years before he was arrested, Simpson didn't exactly give back to the black community, but the minute he was hauled into jail -- and especially when slick Johnny Cochran became his lawyer -- OJ remembered he was black real quickly. For all the poor black men who are in jail for an inadequate defense, there are many OJs of all colors - rich guys who buy their way out of the fate they deserve.

Indeed, these are the two key issues at play here in the O.J. case. He's a guy who literally got off scott free and is living in (that horrible phrase used in divorces) "the style to which he is accustomed" -- a living example how $$$$ can buy or buy off justice...and that the race card works (Michael Jackson take note).

But TMV also worked in the media for many years and his heart is still very much in the media. And seeing how all the TV bigwigs are falling all over each other, and would be willing to slit their grandmother's throat (whoops! No offense OJ...), for the "get" of getting OJ on their show (read that GET RATINGS no matter what you have to do or what journalist principle you jettison) is enough to elicite The Immoderate Barf.

This isn't the first time the news media has exposed its "get" frenzy -- where the important thing is to get someone who's in the news on the show and do a segment with them, even with perfunctory "hard" questions that are merely to justify putting them on and getting the ratings.

A few months ago we were all "treated" to the contemptable interview Katie Couric had with New York Times serial fabricator Jayson Blair on the eve of the publication of his book. There was a lesson there, though: the shows with Blair got ratings but not as good as they hoped and you can buy large crates of Blair's fictional -- I mean biographical -- book to give out as cheap Xmas presents, since it didn't sell (despite Katie's and Larry King's best efforts).

The TV news and talk shows would insist they are not participating in the p.r. rehabilitation of O.J. Simpson but that is really what it is. A truly tough interview would end with OJ glaring angrily.

So he'll do his interviews, the news and talk shows will get their ratings, then OJ is free to go to eventually use his just rehabilitated notority to get involved in some money-making project in between his tireless search for wife Nicole's and Ron Goldman's "real" killers on golf courses and in fine restaurants throughout America.

Tomorrow nite is the season finale of HBO's "The Sopranos." Of course, the ragin question many have is: "Who's gonna get whacked?" But some also see the show as a solid one that poses serious moral questions...

I was rather pleased to see Ray Bradbury call Michael Moore an asshole. He had lots of other great things to say, too.

You know, it's a funny thing: I've always found Bradbury's storytelling a little too depressing to enjoy, although I've read a lot of it. But the man I have always liked and admired. Now I like him even more.

Probably one of the most useful and inspiring books I've read on politics in the last several years has been Kathleen Hall Jamieson's Everything You Think You Know About Politics....And Why You're Wrong.

Notably, Jamieson's book is not a polemic. Instead, she uses a tons of sophisticated research, most of it peer-reviewed, to reach her conclusions. The funny thing being that partisans of both the left and right will generally either mock or become angry at her conclusions, which include all of the following:

* Most voters are quite sophisticated and well-informed as to where the candidates stand on all the major issues.
* Most voters vote based on the issues.
* Attack ads do not drive down voter turnout.
* Negative ads are generally ineffective, except when they are issue-based.
* Most politicians are quite honest and rarely lie.
* Most politicians keep most of their promises.
* When they fail to keep promises, it's usually not without trying to keep them, or giving pretty good reasons why they changed their minds.
* Sound bites, far from being shallow and stupid, convey a great deal of sophisticated information that is helpful to informing voters on the candidates' stances.

There's a good deal more of course, but you get the gist I'm sure. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth of so many partisans about how stupid, ignorant, ill-informed, and misled the American people are are, simply, full of hot air.

Indeed, since reading her book, I've come to notice something fairly common: when you scratch the rhetoric of those who claim that voters are stupid and ill-informed hard enough, nine times out of time underneath it all you find their real position: Voters must be stupid and easily led astray, they think, otherwise, they would vote the way I think they should!

It's also, in my experience, an excuse: if you feel passionately about an issue, it's important that you spend time trying to convince people that you're right. But that's a lot harder than it is to rail against politicians you don't like and whine about how stupid voters are, isn't it?

Pick up Jamieson's book. It's very worth reading.

Those of us who are bookworms have probably all had this experience: you pick up a book, and it captures your soul. You can't put it down. In fact it's so good, when you get to the end you might even turn back to page one and just start reading again.

And yet, you never meet anyone who's ever read it. You never hear about it winning any awards, or see any reviews of it. Years later you look for it and it's never on any bookstore shelves. You may find it on listings of obscure or out-of-print books, and maybe not even then.

These days it's a little better, because there are so many booksellers online. You can find those obscure out-of-print books and get a copy if you want one. But it's sometimes still just a little sad: you look at this wonderful book, and you realize that while it's still floating around out there in the out-of-print book stores, almost no one will ever read it. It had perhaps one print run many years ago, and then disappeared.

Two books I can think of off the top of my head like that are Buddy Holly Is Alive And Well On Ganymede by Bradley Denton, and Ariel by Stephen R. Boyett. Both of these books had perhaps one print run many years ago. Almost no one has heard of them or read them. Yet I loved them so much I read them more than once and many, many years later they still stick with me. Yet still, almost no one's read them. (Although I'm happy to see that Ariel, at least, is now available as an e-book).

Any of you guys got books like this? Books you loved that it seems like no one ever read but you?

Steve of Little Tiny Lies has finally published his book, Eat What You Want And Die Like A Man. Early reviews are favorable....

After faltering a bit last season, "The Sopranos" has hit its stride again. The proof was seen on HBO last Sunday and here's why....

Dave Maddox writes the best movie review in the history of the universe and gives his pick for the film that will sweep the Oscars for 2004.

Warning: much foul language.

It was nice to hear that Fantasia won, but this season lacked the interest that last seasons American Idol held for me.

Mind you, it was clear that the finalists were all phenomenally talented, and I take nothing away from the winner or the othr contestants.

Despite all the snarkage, this is a good show that does an excellent job of bringing phenomenal singers to national attention. Those who make it to the top in this show are invariably in the top one tenth of one percent of singing talent. You don't find these people in karaoke bars or most church choirs except on rare occasion.

Yet every time I tuned in this season, most of the song choices and arrangements simply sucked. Two or three shows of that and I stopped being interested. I think the Barry Manilow episode and the Elton John episodes may have soured me on the series forever.

But all that said? It's still a great show and a great concept. I hope to catch it next season. Maybe I'll be less disappointed than I was in this season.

Oooh, look: Someone's making a film about Mikey.

I can't wait to see it. I wish I could help them in some way.

Hey though, did you notice? Mikey won't consent to be interviewed by them!

I think he must be shy. :-)

Does anyone know where I can get any good online boots of The Dead?

I don't mean the old group, I mean the current lineup. I am very impressed with what little I've heard but I'm looking for more.

Hold onto your hats and get ready for the hype: writer and director Michael Moore won the Cannes film festiva'ls top prize for his virulently anti-Bush documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11". There had been predictions in some quarters that Moore would easily win for his latest pseudo-documentary flick, as a form of political statement from festival judges..so this is not a monster surprise.

According to an AFB report:

Moore, who has accused the White House of seeking to block the film's release in the United States, had to wait until a long standing ovation died down to accept the prize. He dedicated the trophy to his 22-year-old daughter and "to all the children in America, and in Iraq and around the world who have suffered from our actions."

The documentary, which got its worldwide premiere at the Cannes festival last Monday, examines the period from Bush's 2000 election, through the September 11 attacks and the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. It is scathing of Bush, portraying him as out of his depth and keen to further his family's links to Saudi families made rich from oil -- including with the relatives of Osama bin Laden, blamed for the September 11 attacks.

There has been a lot of talk in the U.S. about Moore's having trouble finding a distributor for the film here, that it'll never be shown widely in the U.S. You can find our prediction on what will happen to the film (in some detail) -- and WHY -- by clicking here (and we bet we're right).

I have a book review up on Blogcritics today.

About this time last year, Michael Lackner and Michael Medved had an interesting white paper on anti-American and anti-Israel attacks in modern comic books. I took some issue with Lackner and Medved's recommendations (and still do), but it was interesting reading and an interesting discussion.

I recently got a note from Lackner telling me that he had published a new piece on Anti-American hate-rhetoric in The Punisher, and suggesting that Dean's World readers might want to comment on it.

I must admit that in reading it I cringed twice. Lackner is so obviously upset at the use of the word "fuck" in a comic book marked for adults he feels the need to point it out a few times; you have to wonder if he's still stuck thinking of comics as kiddie stuff. He's also publishing his piece in Front Page Magazine, which is published by David Horowitz and is sort of like a right-wing version of The Nation.

For the record, I am rarely willing to link articles from such sources as The Nation, Common Dreams, Move On, Front Page Magazine, Drudge Report, Worldnet Daily, Lucianne.com, Free Republic, Democratic Underground, Indymedia, and so on, because I find all of these sources far too extreme, their rhetoric far too bilous. They tend to make my stomach churn.

On the other hand, I think David Horowitz' books Radical Son and Destructive Generation are two of the most important historical works of the last quarter-century. They will undoubtedly be read and argued about by people 100 years hence, and used as primary source material for many historians.

That said, Horowitz and his crew are firebrands who offend a lot of people, and the message too often gets lost in that.

I suppose that's a long-winded way of saying "hmmm." But still, all that aside, Lackner's article is worth a read, as it points out that a strong hate-America streak is still being published by some mainstream publishers i the comics genre.

I would of course not outlaw this, nor forbid my son from reading it. But I would protest it, and talk to my son about it if he were reading. Nor would I buy or read it myself. So from that perspective I'm glad Lackner's out there letting parents know they should be watching what their kids read.

Comic books contain more than sex and violence. They often carry hidden (or not-so-hidden) political agendas.

Calling all geeks. Calling all geeks. Check out the Heinlein blog!

As part of the Spirit of America fundraiser, our friend Patterico commissioned me to write an essay recommending good jazz recordings for classical music fans. He mostly likes classical and romance period music, but also likes some modern rock groups, especially stuff like Pink Floyd. That being the case, coming up with a few recommendations for him should be fairly easy. Believe it or not, though, it'd be easier for me the other way around, since I know more about classical than jazz. However, let's see what we can do, eh?

First off, the most important thing to understand about jazz, real jazz music the way it originally started, is that it is improvisational music. Classical music fans will be familiar with the concept of "variations on a theme," especially since Bach and many other composers frequently wrote them. Jazz works along similar principles, except that the musician is generally expected to make up improvizations spontaneously, as he plays. (Believe it or not this used to be quite common among classical musicians as well, but that's another subject.) Some jazz performances will feature a little improvization, some will be almost entirely improvizational.

A big part of the "hook" for the serious jazz fan is in understanding that every time you hear a piece played, it's going to be different. Maybe a little different, or maybe a lot. And any particular recording you hear will be unique, recorded a certain way only once. Once you listen to enough jazz, you start to really appreciate this, because every performance becomes an adventure. You're not just listening to the notes, but you're also appreciating how the musician's mind works, how his creativity works, because if he's any good he's going to surprise you. That's part of the thrill.

Even the vocal performances are improvizational. Again, some more than others, but they're all improvization-based.

The pitfall to all this is that some of the most ingenious improvisers often wind up producing work that's not very accessible to those who aren't deeply immersed in jazz music. I have some jazz recordings in my library that are practically unlistenable to anyone who isn't a jazz musician or a very serious affcianado.

Another frequent complaint about jazz is that it sounds sterile. Many jazz musicians, particularly starting in the 1970s, seem to embrace an austerity and an almost strictly mathematical approach to their music. Often the music is very cerebral and what many people would consider sterile: passion and blue notes and, for want of a better word, "soul," tends to take a back seat to the excitement of the hunt for beauty and complexity of construction.

These things are, of course, subjective. But I suspect most jazz fans know what I'm talking about, even if they wouldn't always agree with my particular picks.

Thus classical fans might actually be surprised to hear it, but they actually probably need to start with jazz that can be classified by that dread word: "accessible." That doesn't mean "for dummies." It means steeped enough of standard chord and melodic structures, and with enough simple hooks, to let the uninitiated get a grasp on what's going on. After you start your adventure in (relatively) safe territory, you can begin exploring and branching out from there, and either keep playing fairly close to home where there's lots of wonderful music, or range as deep into uncharted waters as you want.

With that in mind, here are a half-dozen personal recommendations of jazz music that I think the average classical music fan would appreciate that will also give you an insight into what makes jazz a unique, interesting, and very enjoyable art form:

---

Billie Holliday: Lady In Satin

Serious jazz fans are of two minds about this immortal recording, because strictly speaking the only "jazz" going on here is Billie Holiday's singing. The musical arrangements are very traditional, old-school, Hollywoodish scoring, very lush and simple and lacking any improvization. Offhand this would sound like it would not be much of a jazz recording, then.

However, Holiday herself sings pure jazz throughout, weaving and improvizing around the very simple, straightforward arrangements. You thus get a deep appreciation for her performance, for everything interesting or profound in this recording comes from Holiday's voice. Everything else is just a simple backdrop for that.

And what a voice it is. This recording needs to be listened to in a quiet room. Yes, you can put it on as background music and probably not offend anyone, but to truly appreciate it you must listen to it like you listen to great classical music, with earphones or in a quiet room, with a glass of wine perhaps, while you relax.

Holliday was very near the end of her life when she made this recording, and frankly her voice was nearly gone. She'd had a hard, difficult life, and at first you think she's not even singing very well. She's hoarse, her voice cracks now and then, and rasps throughout. But by the time you're halfway through it, if you're really listening, likely your heart will be breaking---because hers so obviously was.

It's simply an amazing recording.

Artie Shaw: Begin the Beguine

A contemporary to such big band swing greats as Bennie Goodman, Glenn Miller, and Tommy Dorsey, Artie Shaw managed to do something unique. While the other big band musicians mostly wrote pop music with strong jazz influence, Shaw's music tended to be jazz music with a pop accessibility. It was improvizational, original, cutting edge, and yet still kids in their 20s could listen to it and jump, jive and swing to it.

While he wasn't the most popular of the big band leaders, he was peerless in terms of musical ability.

Unfortunately, the best Shaw recordings are all from the 1930s and 1940s, which means they're monaural and limited in fidelity. Nevertheless Shaw's music is so powerful, interesting, and dynamic, it shines right through even the quality limitations of the era.

Buena Vista Social Club

Afro-Cuban Jazz played by masters of an almost forgotten subset of popular jazz. Accessible, dancable, rich, and subtly complex. It sounds laid back when you first listen to it, but the more you listen to it, the more intensity and richness you find. I can think of nothing bad to say about this recording.

Al DiMeola, John McLaughlin, & Paco DeLucia: Friday Night in San Francisco

Three simply phenomenal guitarists explore and virtually make love to the amplified acoustic guitar. While the musical forms are basically jazz with a strong flamenco influence, the music otherwise defies categorization. But I don't see how any fan of any form of guitar music can fail to be both impressed and awed by this amazing live recording.

I think even Andres Segovia would have respected what these musicians could do together.

Mahavishnu Orchestra: Between Nothingness and Eternity.

Having not mentioned any real electric jazz yet, I picked my personal favorite. This 1973 live recording in Central Park could have better recording quality, but the sound is quite acceptable and the music exceptional. Spacey, cerebral, intense, at times mind-blowing. This is probably the quintessential electric Jazz/Fusion recording from the 1970s. It's right on the edge of what I'd call "accessible," since it's not something you'll exactly tap your toes or swing dance to. But if you like electric guitars and synthesizers, and also like complex and interesting music, this is an exceptional and surprising recording.

Duke Ellington and John Coltrane

Ellington and Coltrane represent two different generations and two different mindsets on jazz, and in this recording is in some ways like a baton-passing by Ellington and a tribute to the older generation by Coltrane. It's mostly Ellington's music, but Ellington lays back and lets Coltrane do his thing.

Reportedly, there were no charts or formal arrangements used at any time during the making of this recording. Ellington and Coltrane would sit down at a piano, talk, come to some agreements, then get up and tell the other musicians what they wanted--and then just play. To really appreciate this recording, you want to appreciate that aspect too: these musicians weren't sure just exactly what was going to come out of their instruments at any given moment. They basically knew where they were going, but making it up as they went along anyway. When you feel the excitement of that in your soul, you'll start to get what's so cool about jazz. At least, really good jazz.

Grateful Dead: One From The Vault

Bonus recommendation: A lot of people will hoot at this one, but they can go stuff themselves. The Grateful Dead were seminal pioneers and, at their best, unsurpassable masters of an under-appreciated genre known as "Hippie Jazz," also known these days as the "Jam Band" sub-genre. More or less rock based, hippy jazz is best understood as an eclectic mix of musical styles with a moderate pop sensibility, not too different from what artists like Count Basie and Artie Shaw were all about: accessible, but with no small amount of creative improvization in the mix.

The Grateful Dead were a live band meant to be heard live and, most importantly, they always played every song differently. The set lists changed from night to night, the tempos changed, and while the basic chord structures stayed the same the improvisations often got so wild it often felt impossible for these magicians to find their way back together--but they always did.

The Dead were so improvisational, and their lead guitarist Jerry Garcia sometimes so undisciplined, they sometimes delivered a lousy show. Indeed, it wasn't uncommon for people at some shows to say, "what's the big deal, why do people like this band?"

On a good night, you understood: when they were on, they were on. You had no idea where they were going or what they were going to do but when they were clicking it was mind-blowing.

As you listen to this mid-70s live recording, which features killer sound, note that what may sound like carefully structured songs are, in fact, largely improvisations around themes. Pay particular attention to the solos, and to the breaks as they move between songs, which was where the band liked to improvise the most. At every good Dead show, there were always moments for the real fans when they'd be listening, and enjoying, and all of a sudden they'd hear something and look at each other and go, "wow, where did that come from?" Hear tell it, that happened to the musicians on stage a lot too.

The music is accessible, pleasant, creative, and intense, and I think even serious jazz fans who've never experienced the best of what the good jam bands have to offer will find this a pleasing recording.

---

So there you have it: the Dean Esmay pick of jazz music that classical music lovers might well enjoy. I believe you'll find these picks all interesting, with enough depth to show the subtlety, power, and variety that can be found within the jazz art form, and to see its potential.

Now, I'm quite certain that many people will disagree vehemently with some of my recommendations, and maybe all of them. If so, well, that's what the comments are for. So tell me, readers: what do you think of my choices, and what recommendations might you make?

It's good to see Ukranian high culture making its way into the mainstream, isn't it?

It appears that TV execs are noticing more and more that adults really do like cartoons, especially adults who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s.

I remember how my stepfather used to deride me for watching cartoons. It was very much considered kid stuff back then. Well I'm heading toward 40 in a few years and I'm still not the least bit ashamed to say that I still love watching cartoons.

Of course The Simpsons have begun to suck, and South Partk is starting to show signs of running out of gas, but in their heyday they were just plain brilliant. And I still love half the stuff on Adult Swim, if only I had time enough to watch it as much as I'd like. But I'd give big money just to have all the Harvey Birdman episodes on DVD....

We just saw Kill Bill Volume 2.

The other day, Chris told me he hated it. I honestly don't get why. I thought it was fabulous. I can't wait to buy it on DVD along with Volume 1.

What a great movie. Hell, it's like both movies together are just one movie.

I won't even try to review it. I'll just say I loved it.

Are you aware of a phenomenon known as disc rot? I have been for some time, and it's worrying me more and more. I have CDs that are going on 15 years old now, and some have survived multiple cross-country moves. I'm sure some of them are dying, or will begin dying soon.

Which is rather horrifying to contemplate, given just how many music CDs I own (around 2,000 I think).

Some classics just never die.

Well, almost. Go to this link and hear the latest instant-classic satires from The Capital Steps, Washington's most revered satire troop. Hear Bill and Hillary sing "My Way" and John Kerry do "Both Sides Now." Another one: George Bush and Sadaam singing a song from "Grease." Plus the classic legal song: "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Scalia."

The Capital Steps are great role models. They started as Republican staffers doing satire for a hobby and it blossomed into a fulltime job, including troupes of satirists travelling around the country doing road show versions for corporate, high school and college groups. But even though they are Republicans -- unlike the satire on radio talk shows -- they blast EVERYONE including Republicans. They have been welcomed by every White House (Ronald Reagan welcomed them in and made them "cool" although Nancy was not amused; the Clintons liked them until Monicagate and their slashing songs that led to Kenneth Starr inviting them to do his parties).

The one person who didn't find them funny was Bob Dole. He did not like their satire of him and his wife singing "Viagra" to the tune of "Maria." (Bob: "Viagra, Viagra..." Libby: "Thank GOD for Viagra!." Bob:"Viagra!") and threatened to leave a party if they sang it there.

You can sample their stuff by going to the link and even, like me, starting your own collection of their CDs. It doesn't get any better than the Capital Steps: it's like listening to Saturday Night Live at its best.

I was watching A Shot In The Dark this evening after waking up from my afternoon nap. I realized while watching it that Peter Sellers was simply brilliant in this movie. Now of course maybe that doesn't seem like a profound observation because everyone recognizes this movie as a classic. But I was watching it carefully and the man was SO subtle, his sense of timing so utterly sublime... I couldn't take my eyes off him. And, while almost all the Pink Panther movies had some brilliant moments, it's hard to dispute that A Shot In The Dark was the movie where Sellers was at the absolute peak of his powers.

It started me thinking. We often talk about movies we think are funny, or roles that crack us up. And we also often talk about great dramatic performances. But what about those great individual comedic performances? Where it's not just the writing that's funny, the story that's funny, the lines that are funny, but where the acting itself is simply brilliant? Not just funny, but subtle, carefully crafted, and so good you say, "man, almost no one could pull that off the way that was pulled off! Genius!"

I mean performances where you might even say you've seen funnier movies, but the individual performance in the movie was untoppable. For example, I would argue that there may be movies every bit as funny as Young Frankenstein, and while you might even think that individual Gene Wilder movies are funnier (some would suggest that Blazing Saddles was Gene Wilder's funniest movie, for example), I think you'd have a very hard time arguing that the actual role of young Dr. Frankenstein was Gene Wilder's very best work as an individual performance. Some might argue that Monty Python's funniest movie was Holy Grail, but I don't see how you couldn't acknowledge that as an individual performance, Graham Chapman in the role of Brian in The Life of Brian wasn't his best individual work and a truly unforgettable performance. Ditto, you might say that Some Like It Hot was a classic movie, but you probably wouldn't say that any of the people were particular standouts, it was just a great ensemble cast and a great script.

See what I'm saying?

So, I have a few nominations for immortal individual comedic performances:

* Peter Sellers: A Shot In The Dark
* Gene Wilder: Young Frankenstein (with honorable mention to Cloris Leachman in one of the most brilliantly-played supporting comedic roles ever.
* Groucho Marx: Duck Soup
* Graham Chapman: The Life Of Brian
* Frances McDormand: Fargo

Anyone got any other suggestions?

You know, I had heard about this service to remove profanity from movies, but this is the first place I've seen where you can actually buy them.

I remember there was some big stink over this service over the last year, with some screaching that it was censorship. Funny though, it strikes me as just another manifestation of free speech, and not censorship at all. Mind you, I have no interest in it, for profanity does not disturb me and I find people who are disturbed by it to be a little funny. But hey, you know, if people want it, why not? It's not as if the originals are no longer available as a result.

It does emphasize one point to me though: I'll never be a part of a certain subset of Americans. I am a little put off by people who can't handle colorful language. They actually disturb me a little. I'm not sure what to make of that tendency in myself, but there it is.

As I'm a gamer (one who partakes in the greatness that is video game/PC game/role-playing games/whatever else) and my own blog contains in it's descriptor the term 'gamer' I figured I'd talk about a game while I'm here. I've chosen Full Spectrum Warrior.

Full Spectrum Warrior is scheduled to be released for both X-Box and PC. You PS2 people are out in the cold. The game seems to exclusively deal with MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) style game play. The website describes this style of game play as follows:

"MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) is the term used to describe any type of military action where battles take place in an environment where man-made construction or high population density is the dominant feature, such as a city or town. This type of fighting requires strategies that differ immensely from fighting on other types of terrain, such as large deserts or jungles.

In Full Sp