Monday, July 27, 2009

A Morning of Modern Country

I came into work the other day, already in a less-than-stellar mood thanks to my newly semi-regular 7 AM start time. The morning hours would be bad enough, but that day, the musical selection was worse. I hate modern country music, so it really shouldn't have been a surprise that I hated the "Modern Country" section. At first I wasn't so concerned. I liked Nickel Creek, after all, and when they were at their peak they had videos played on CMT. Garth Brooks was always good, although I don't know how "modern" he'd be considered right now. And Tim McGraw and Alan Jackson come through for me now and again, with songs that are at the very least listenable. But the tipping point came early, with one extremely easy to hate song. (Note: I don't go into detail with the lyrics I'm talking about. If you click the links, you can take a quick look at them yourself. I promise you, it won't be too taxing or time consuming.)

Song 1- Jason Aldean, "Big Green Tractor"


I actually saw this come up on the little music view screen in the Ace office as I got a radio. It wasn't promising from the start. To be honest, my dislike for this song is fairly straightforward. It's stupid. There's no intelligence to it. The guy is reveling in the fact that he has a tractor, and he wants to take his girl with him. If this were a middle-school FFA talent show, then I could see these lyrics being considered, at the most, passable. Sadly, he's a professional "musician" who's making real money with this song. Sometimes the world is a strange, sad, terrible place.



Song 2- Justin Moore, "Small Town USA"


This was a ridiculous waste of time spent in a recording studio. If they'd propped the decaying corpse of Frank Sinatra in front of a microphone, they'd have gotten something more musically rewarding for their efforts.
(Bonus: That song was by Justin Moore, who's only had 2 singles. I had to include the lyrics of the other song, just to give you an idea of his track record.




Song 3- Josh Turner, "Firecracker"


Apparently the current hot country trend is finding a none-too-subtle metaphor for sex, and driving it into the ground, and Firecracker makes full use of that MO. (As did "Back That Thing Up, if you were paying attention. And even if you aren't paying attention, these songs do everything they can to beat you over the head with the "hidden" meaning, a la 50 Cent's "Candy Shop" http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858529579/ ) In that regard, maybe two of today's most similar genres are mainstream country and mainstream rap/hip-hop, a connection perhaps best exemplified by Trace Adkins characteristically mailed-in effort "Honky Tonk Badonkadonk". http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858536710/

It's not the most encouraging of fads. Nor the most creative.

Song 4- Sugarland, "It Happens"
http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858732651/ (Note: Change "flay" to "flat" when you read it, lyric transcription error)

This, really, is just terrible. It's the worst kind of bad, in that it's not only horrendous, but pretentiously so. Based on this model, the key to profundity is to throw in as many adverbs as possible, and to try and pass yourself off as an "everyperson" to dispense advice on how to view life. Yeah, it's easy to say "It Happens" when you've sold ten million records and don't have to worry about these sorts of events, for which regular people would probably go to jail. Idiots.

(While I'm writing this, I thought I'd point out another couple of distinguishing factors I've picked up on. First, the song structures. Pretty much every one follows the basic Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Chorus, Chorus setup. Apparently they do this because it's much easier to write one catchy line and beat the absolute shit out of it than to try and balance and fill out an entire song. The other characteristic is the lack of imagination when it comes to song titles. All the songs played at work were new to me, so I jotted down the string of words I felt would most easily identify the song for a later lookup. And, without fail, I hit on the title, or at least a portion of it. (For example, instead of "Firecracker", I came up with "She's a firecracker". This, I think, hits on a more underlying feature of modern country, in that it's trying to be easy to remember, easy to request when you call in, easy to find on a jukebox. But that's all it's trying to be. It's not trying for any sort of redeeming artistic meaning. In this respect, once again, it's similar to modern rap/hip-hop. I can't deny the financial sense in this, it's the same type of thinking that allows James Patterson and Dean Koontz to sell 8 million books a month. And I'm sure the artists themselves don't care too much, because they're famous now, and they'll be rich until they die. But what I'm not sure they realize (or do realize, and ignore) is that when they die, or retire, that's it. They're gone. There won't be any retrospectives talking about how much Gretchen Wilson meant to modern pop culture, or music, or even modern country music, because she doesn't mean anything. For reference, compare the media coverage and public response to the deaths of Michael Jackson and Heath Ledger to the potential response should, say, Jason Aldean's plane go down. (God forbid. I already jinxed Bernie Mac on this blog.) The country stars of today are trading longevity and legacy for easy money and a performance at the CMA's. To each their own, I suppose.)

Song 5- Tim McGraw, "Back When"


This was perhaps the most disappointing, because it's Tim McGraw. Sadly, it's the worst version of Tim McGraw, the ridiculously nostalgic kind, combined with racism. What this song seems to be saying is, "Man, it sure was better way back when. People were nicer, and them Negros couldn't influence our culture, language, or hell, even our elections!! What a world that was." I hate these types of sentiments, because they're always so completely wrong, yet voiced with a tone so confident as to suggest that no one could possibly disagree. And the lyrics are terrible. How does Timmy cash his royalty checks from that Nelly song with a straight face anymore?

Song 6- Rascal Flatts, "Summer Nights"


Unsurprisingly, it was Rascal Flatts that finally forced me to change the channel. There are many, many things about this song that contribute to it's absolute God-awfulness. First of all, it's Rascal Flatts. There's nothing about them that doesn't annoy me. And, to be honest, while researching this song, I learned more things about them that I hate.

Most of my hatred is reserved for the lead singer, Gary LeVox. First of all, he's 39, and he looks like this.


The list of things that offends me about that picture alone would probably be longer than this entire exercise. (I still can't decide if it's the hair, the necklace, the shirt, the fact the shirt isn't buttoned all the way up, or the fact that he's holding the microphone like a total pussy that offends me the most. But it's disgusting.)

(Bonus- Here's a picture of Nate Torrence, the guy from the Capital One commercials with David Spade. I've always thought they look alike.

As I looked into Gary LeVox, more and more details emerged, and they all offended me on a deeply personal level. First, LeVox isn't his real name. Because nothing's more authentic and American than a vaguely French sounding stage name. But what's even more offensive than his deciding that Gary Wayne Vernon, Jr. wasn't good enough to make country music is the inspiration for his new moniker. He took it from the studio console that controlled his lead vocal-track, i.e., "Vox". Wow. What a man. So, Gary the Voice, which theoretically could be cool if it was describing a mob member played by James Caan, is actually a white, 39-year old, multimillionaire country singer who doesn't play an instrument. Actually, there's one thing in there that's not true.

He can't fucking sing. Can't do it. What he does with his voice (which, just to remind you, he thought enough of to name himself after it) produces sounds not unlike a garbage disposal running with the water off. Unless he's trying to hit a high note. When he tries to hit a high note (which, since he only goes for two notes, both through the top part of his nose, is pretty much all the time), it sounds just like a sound I heard when I was little. There was a small cat stuck in a tree outside our house. It was there all day, crying, and we couldn't figure out how to save it. My mom actually called the fire department, and they laughed her off the phone. That night, it continued to cry, until we heard a shriek, the sound of an owl taking it. That shriek is what the lead singer of Rascal Flatts sounds like, and it's all I can think about when I hear their music. (My mom called the fire department the next day, told them what had happened, and basically berated them. They seemed to feel bad.)

So, Rascal Flatts is terrible. And this song is worse. First, the lyrics are downright bad. There's nothing good about the choice of words, or the order in which they're arranged. No redeeming artistic value. Or value of any kind. But it gets worse. It's one of those songs released at the beginning of May that just begs and begs to be the "Anthem of Summer". Previous such songs that have earned my ire include "Soak Up the Sun" by Sheryl Crow, the Ataris covering "Boys of Summer" pretty much note-for-note and changing "Deadhead sticker" to "Black Flag sticker", and "All Summer Long" by Kid Rock, which ripped off an acceptable (though racist) summer song, turned it into something awful ("We were trying different things/Smoking funny things" has to be one of the best couplets this side of a Shakespearean sonnet. Who knew that "things" rhymed with "things"? And he used it in a ripped off song, no less. And it managed to squeeze in the ever-present Kid Rock scream-sing line, always accompanied by some studio distortion. (Featured here during "ALLLL SUMMER LONGGG!!!", another example is "I was off to DRINK YOU AWAYYYyyyYYY!!!" in "The Picture" with Sheryl Crow. Deep.)

But not only did it beg to be a summer song, it begged to be a song of the everyperson. This is one of the stupidest modern country conceits, exemplified by these songs (off the top of my head, I remembered the titles but had to look up the artists.

Unsurprisingly, Jason Aldean makes an appearance with "Hicktown".

Craig Morgan, "Red Neck Yacht Club"

There are more, (including previous entry "Small Town USA) but this is long enough. Suffice to say, I hate the idea of artists who are worth millions, and who would never be seen on a sandbar (outside the video shoots), trying to pass themselves off as "one of you guys", even though it's really just a calculated effort to pander to the crowds, so, for example, "Red Neck Yacht Club" will be played on boats all summer. It's pretending to celebrate the virtues of the types of people it's actively exploiting. That bothers me a lot.

So, "Summer Nights" features everything I hate about a country song, or a song in general. When I first realized that it managed to play on pretty much every one of my triggers, I wondered how it was possible that such a song was even created. And then, I found it's Wikipedia entry, which featured this line about it's origins.

"Summer Nights" was co-written by singer Gary LeVox.

And it all made sense.

Thanks for reading.


Sunday, July 26, 2009

Let's Fix The Cubs

Yes, I know they're in first place. Yes, I know they've played better lately. Yes, I know that the odds of any huge, landscape-shifting deal is extraordinarily unlikely given the deadly combination of an in-flux ownership situation and a dearth of highly-regarded minor-league prospects. But this isn't a team needing a complete makeover. The core is intact from a 97-win season in 2008. The problem all year has been that the offseason strings pulled by GM Jim Hendry were the wrong strings. Trading Mark DeRosa, signing Aaron Miles and Milton Bradley. That's his offseason. (The Kerry Wood-Kevin Gregg deal has been somewhat of a wash so far.) Milton has been terrible, not only on the field, but off. It's never a good sign when even the media are tired of reporting how much of a headcase a professional athlete is. (Usually there's nothing they love more. Witness: "The T.O. Show")

So, my point is that the Cubs are so, so close to being in a position to call themselves legitimate championship contenders. But you'd have to be wearing some fairly heavy-duty Cubbie Blue glasses to suggest there aren't a few places for improvement. Let's take a look at the current first choice starting lineup.

1. Johnson/Fukudome-CF
2. Theriot-SS
3. Lee-1B
4. Ramirez-3B
5. Bradley-RF
6. Soriano-LF
7. Soto-C
8. Fonenot/Baker-2B

Soto has been injured, but is progressing, and should be back by mid-August. Lee's been a rock all season, as has Theriot. Ramirez is just getting healthy, and Soriano is starting to go on a hot streak, and his move down in the order has greatly helped balance the Cubs lineup. Based on the season's performance, there are three spots that could be improved. Let's take a look.

Center Field-The least concerning position. Kosuke Fukudome has recovered from his apparently annual June nosedive, and Reed Johnson is a gamer, a veteran player who can contribute. This isn't a real position of worry, and Kosuke probably isn't going anywhere, so the only way another player becomes an option in center is if the Cubs move Milton Bradley. Which brings us to our next, and slightly more concerning, trouble spot.

Right Field-Milton Bradley has been a disaster on all fronts. I'll never know why the Cubs sold the farm to get him, trading away Mark DeRosa being the biggest mistake. The stated reasoning was a desire to get more left-handed after watching the Dodgers right-handed pitching completely fool the Cubs en route to a sweep in the 2008 NLDS. That led to a desire to bring in a left-handed run producer. There's one giant flaw in that logic, however. Mark DeRosa hit .275 against right-handed pitching last year, with 16 homers and 64 RBI. His replacement, Bradley,
hit .312 with 12 homers and 52 RBI. He also struck out 79 times against righties (compared to DeRosa's 73) in 75 fewer at-bats. And anyone who watched the Cubs all year, including the playoffs, could have told you that the problems with the bats in the playoffs were there all season. They have a streaky offense, built around the home run. They average 5 runs a game, sure, but they get there by scoring 10 one game and 0 the next. And in the playoffs, when Soriano and Ramirez started swinging for the fences every at-bat, they collapsed. (Ironically, DeRosa's Game 1 home run was the offensive highlight of the series.)

So, instead of fixing the actual problems (which they only just recognized a month or so ago, when they fired hitting coach Gerald Perry) they switched out DeRosa for Bradley. This was the worst possible direction to go. Jim Hendry took an anchor in the clubhouse, a player who provided average to above average defensive cover at 6 positions, and a value guy ($5.5 million in 2009) and turned him into a clubhouse nightmare, a player lacking any semblance of focus (just ask him how many outs there are), a player who's average to below-average in his one position, a player who's played more than 100 games three times in his career (including last year, when he primarily DH'd for the Rangers) and a player who's never driven in more than 77 runs in a season. And he paid him $7 million this season, with even more coming the next two years. And, in an amazing turn of events, it's blown up in his face. Bradley is so bad from the left side that Lou Piniella has been forced to address questions about Bradley sticking to the right side only. What a disaster that would be. To make matters worse, three other options the Cubs should have considered have been great. Adam Dunn, Bobby Abreu, and Raul Ibanez were all available. Abreu would have been the best value, eventually signing for $5 million. He's better defensively than Bradley, is a more steady clubhouse presence, has hit .314 with 66 RBI, and with 20 steals would be leading the Cubs by a large margin. Plus, his reasonable contract would have allowed the Cubs to keep Mark DeRosa at 2nd, and by extension, keep him out of the Cardinals lineup.

Imagining this as the Cubs opening day lineup in 2009 is tough to stomach, knowing what the reality is.

1. Fukudome
2. Theriot
3. Lee
4. Ramirez
5. Abreu
6. Soriano
7. DeRosa
8. Soto

Wow. Hurts to think about, to be honest. It would have made the Cubs a much deeper team, keeping Fontenot as a bench player (which his 2009 performance suggests he's best suited for) and would have eliminated the need to sign Aaron Miles, whom the Cubs are currently paying $2.2 million to stay on an "extended rehab assignment" at AAA Iowa, where he's 13-59, and at that rate, looks to stay on the 15-day DL for about 100 days. (And, let it be known, I'm completely fine with that. He hurts the team by being on the roster. How Tony LaRussa got anything out of him I'll never know.) DeRosa also would have provided cover when Aramis Ramirez missed two months. And it would have worked on the payroll side, since the Abreu/DeRosa total ($10.5 for just 2009) is far more manageble than the Bradley/Miles combo ($9.2 for 2009, but Miles is due $2 million more in 2010, while Bradley has $23 million coming over the next two seasons.) The Cubs could have swung $1.3 million.

But anyway. That's where they went wrong. As for what they can do to fix it, well, that's a problem. It's hard to imagine them moving Bradley, because it's hard to imagine anyone wanting him. But if they could find a way, one of the three players I mentioned earlier would be a great fit. Adam Dunn. The Nationals are offloading veterans like crazy. Dunn is a huge left-handed bat that does nothing but drive in runs, he's hitting .278 with 25 homers, 73 RBI, and a hefty .405 OBP/.959 OPS. Plus, he does his best work against righties, with 20 of his homers and 50 of his RBI coming against them, to go with an OPS of 1.041. Wow. Sure, he's a butcher in the outfield, but Bradley's not exactly Clemente, and at least Dunn would make up for the runs he allows in. But, as I said, it's hard to envision Hendry giving up on Bradley, and it's hard to see the Cubs dealing for a player like Dunn with Bradley still on the roster.

Second Base-The Mike Fontenot/Jeff Baker platoon hasn't been great. Fontenot has regressed with more playing time (although his forced shift to 3rd base, thanks to Hendry's failure to acquire a backup that had actually played third base, probably had something to do with his slump) and it's too early to judge Baker, but it's hard to get excited about a 28 year-old whose previous organization gave up on in exchange for a 23 year-old single-A pitching prospect. That's what makes the DeRosa decision so tough to take, along with the sight of 2008 free agent Orlando Hudson lighting it up for the Dodgers. (For the record, the Cubs could have had Hudson/Abreu for $8.3 million in 2009, almost a million cheaper than the Miles/Bradley duo. Fantastic.) As for what's out there now, Freddy Sanchez of the Pirates would be a great get, but the asking price is steep. Orlando Cabrera may be a good fit, and would elminate the need for Aaron Miles altogether with his ability to play short and second. (Crowd cheers wildly). That would give the Cubs Baker and Fontenot on the bench (assuming neither is dealt) and add versatility there. And the red herring of spring 2008, Brian Roberts, would still be a great fit. But, if it couldn't happen then, it won't happen now.

Pitching

Here's the tough side of the equation. The Cubs, when healthy, have the best rotation in the National League. But they're never healthy. They need another reliever, maybe two, with one being left-handed. This provides cover should Sean Marshall (quietly having a great year) be forced into the rotation. With Ted Lilly out until the middle of August, the Cubs probably need to deal for two pitchers. Either one starter (a veteran number 4/5 guy, Doug Davis, Jon Garland, Zach Duke) and one reliever (lefties available include Jon Grabow, George Sherill, and Joe Beimel) or two relievers (one of the previous lefties, and another solid veteran, my dream being Chad Qualls of the Diamondbacks.) So. Having said all this, let's look at the potential moves that I would try to make as GM.

Move 1-Roy Halladay. He's fantastic, good enough to compensate for all the Cubs problems elsewhere, and getting him to the North Side means keeping him away from the rest of baseball's contenders. (Especially St. Louis and Milwauakee.) Of course, the Cubs have no chance of getting him. (Jake Peavy would also be in this category, but his injury has derailed his trade chances.)

So, moving past the pipe dream above. Any of the following moves would be a positive.

Any one of these hitters: Adam Dunn, Orlando Cabrera, Freddy Sanchez, Brian Roberts
Any one of these pitchers: Joe Beimel, George Sherill, Jon Grabow

Or, assuming the Cubs won't add a bat (and it looks unlikely), any two of these pitchers: Beimel, Sherill, Grabow, Chad Qualls, Jon Garland, Zach Duke

How likely are any of these moves? I think Hendry will trade for a lefty reliever. And considering that Beimel/Dunn, Sanchez/Grabow, and Sherill/Roberts are all combinations that play for the same team, it's easy to wonder if a package deal would be possible. Any of those combinations would make the team better, considerably so. None of them are likely. But I would almost guarantee at least one of the names I mentioned above will be a Cub before Friday. If not, that's probably okay. Just as long as they do something, I'll live with it. The only way I'd be disappointed is if they didn't try to add something.

Or if they recalled Aaron Miles. He really is terrible.