Friday, August 7, 2009

Music I Want: Muse-The Resistance

As promised in the intro post, I will be talking about anything and everything on this blog. That includes music.

Who This Is:
Muse is one of the most severely underrated bands around today. I think they're big in the UK, where they're from, but they could certainly be bigger here in the States. One can only listen to "Kids" by MGMT so many times on the radio.
Muse, to quote a DJ on the same station that plays the above linked song at least four times a day, is one of the few bands that does the epic arena rock feel and consistently kicks your a$% doing it.
I couldn't agree more.
Their first album, Showbiz, was released near the end of 1999, to little critical acclaim or anything, really. They've since released 3 other albums, "Origin of Symmetry," "Absolution," and "Black Holes and Revelations." Their new album, "The Resistance," is set to come out September 14th.
And yes, those albums are indeed as weird as their titles suggest.
To accurately describe Muse's style would be like trying to describe Coldplay's serious shift in style from "X&Y" to "Viva La Vida." The same elements are always present, but from album to album, and even song to song, the style changes so dramatically that it's hard to categorize. In my iTunes, however, I simply have Muse categorized as Epic Rock. This video will explain that.



What I want:
That song was off their "Black Holes and Revelations" album. And they consistently sound that huge, epic, and heavy. And there's only three guys in the band.
Their new album, "The Resistance," certainly looks to be a lot more political than their previous albums, and even those were pretty strong at times. And I really want it.
Only two tracks are available yet, and I have gotten a hold of both of them.
Why I Want It:
The first to be released was "United States of Eurasia," and what a trip it was. It starts much the same as Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody," with the lead singer, Matthew Bellamy, singing over a mellow piano and strings part. Bellamy, in addition to having an unnaturally large range, is also an accomplished classical pianist and incredible guitarist.
Then, in a very Queen-y moment, the band splits into three-part harmony and wailing guitar riffs with this line: "Why split these states, when there can be only one?"
Then, in true Muse-what-the-@#$#-are-they-doing, they break into some Arabic stuff, and then back to piano-themed, one-noted bass-line verse.
Bellamy then sings about the unification of something (the world maybe? it's very tongue-in-cheek about America and Britain trying to push its stuff on every one else), and just before a Chopin outro complete with children playing and bombs dropping, the band chants "Eurasia! -Sia! -Sia!"
Here's the video, and yes, it's as weird and eclectic as I described.


The other song that's coming up on the album is the first track, actually. "Uprising" starts with a weird synth intro that's strangely reminiscent of the opening theme of Doctor Who and a bass and drum part that's very Marylin Manson/Family Force 5.
The clapping fits in perfectly. You automatically start bobbing your head when you hear it.
And then come the lyrics. It's very political, and obviously very anti-status-quo, and as a conservative, I am expected to hate it. But given the political climate these days (Obama is the best!!!!!!! WOO!!! Barf.), I actually agree with it, so here are the full lyrics along with the YouTube embed.



The paranoia is in bloom, the PR
The transmissions will resume
They'll try to push drugs
Keep us all dumbed down and hope that
We will never see the truth around
(So come on!)

Another promise, another scene, another
A package not to keep us trapped in greed
With all the green belts wrapped around our minds
And endless red tape to keep the truth confined
(So come on!)

[Chorus]
They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious

Interchanging mind control
Come let the revolution take its toll if you could
Flick the switch and open your third eye, you'd see that
We should never be afraid to die
(So come on!)

Rise up and take the power back, it's time that
The fat cats had a heart attack, you know that
Their time is coming to an end
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend

[Chorus]
They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious

Hey .. hey ... hey .. hey!
(repeat)

[Chorus]
They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious

Hey .. hey ... hey .. hey!
(repeat)

I really cannot wait for this album. I'll do a full review when I get my hands on it.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Reactor Flashback


I had a purely political blog back during the election season last year for kansan.com. It was for an opinion writing class I was taking at the time, and was a lot of fun. I wrote a lot about the issues during the election, issues elsewhere in the world, what my thoughts as a conservative in an incredibly liberal-land were (I've heard KU called the Berkeley of the Midwest), and how I thought we as American citizens should have reacted.
Needless to say, a lot of my posts went on to be severely criticized. I was called an idiot, a bad journalist, and even a racist at one point.
I'll post a few of my old posts here on the new Reactor. It's interesting to see my opinions back then, how much they've changed, how much they haven't changed, and what people were saying.
So here, from September 10, 2008, is my first Reactor blog post, "Who Watches The Watchmen?"
I've attached the comments, but sadly my own comments answering some questions were lost.
Enjoy, and as always, tell me what you think.
--------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to the Reactor. I am a conservative in a liberal land, a Republican where Republicans fear to tread. In this blog I will present a conservative reaction to the events in our world.
Ahh, election season. That magical time of every four years when people hate other people for no apparent reason at all and the media tries to play the middle of the field.
Believe me, I'm the last person who would want to criticize the media. I am part of the media and I hate it when the media is accused of spinning everything and just out to screw with us. People with no experience in the field assume they know everything about how the news process works and attack it for being one-sided.
Usually I disagree with them.
Now that I'm watching the current election coverage, I begin to see what those angry people are talking about.
The news seems to be hailing one particular candidate as the savior of our country, able to magically fix all the wrongs in this world. The news seems to be tilted towards covering everything that candidate does and only a little of what the other one does.
When I did I normal Google search for McCain, 86,600,000 hits came up. When I did the same one for Obama, 161,000,000 hits came up. Maybe he's just more popular.
But when I did a Google News search, 351,174 for McCain and 380,343 for Obama came up.
30,000 hits is nothing, right?
On CNN.com, 15,700,000 popped up for McCain and 27,000,000 appeared for Obama.
Hmm. 11 million hit difference now.
This may seem like a simple fluke, but in reality, it is a sign of something more. The media is obviously leaning towards Obama as a favorite. The coverage of him and his campaign coverage is more prominent, and has been going on for far longer than the coverage of Republican hopefuls before McCain stepped up.
Every time you turn on the TV it's talking more and more about how awesome Obama is and how he's going to single-handedly save America. I was listening to the radio, and on a commercial for some Rock The Vote thing (a decidedly BIPARTISAN thing, mind you), they used a clip from an Obama speech. The clip? Something along the lines of this:
"And in November, the name George W. Bush will not be on the ballot!" *big cheer*
Don't even get me started on the ridiculousness of that statement. That's a whole other blog entry. The fact is, the media is all but ENDORSING Barack Obama. Sure newspapers do it all the time, but what happens if CNN, FOX, MSNBC, heck, even the BBC endorses a candidate?
In other words, the media's credibility is going severely downhill. If a network endorses a candidate, which I don't see as too far away at this point, then where will people get their balanced viewpoints? I realize they don't exist from any one source, but a conglomeration of unaffiliated sources provide the American people with the big picture. With the way the media is heading this election, what is the big picture?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who watches the Watchmen?


Discussion

The Kansan.com staff reviews comments regularly. Please be respectful of your peers. For our full user policy, click here.

September 10th, 2008
4:18 p.m.
Flag as offensive

¨Every time you turn on the TV it's talking more and more about how awesome Obama is and how he's going to single-handedly save America.

How is it logical to say that every time you turn on the TV, someone is talking about how awesome Obama is? This is a weak assertion, unless you have watched all television programming since Barack announced his canidancy. Obviously, you imply that you have.

Further, by cherry picking statistics from one source (CNN, google does not publish it´s own media) you seek to associate all media with a possible CNN bias, and then march out the old, trite liberal media bias argument. Arguing the media is purely liberally biased becomes silly the second you remember that Fox News was the number one rated cable news broadcaster in 2007.

Setting up a false argument that all bias is liberal, you only distract from the fact that bias in general has reared it´s head in ugly, new ways in the 21st century. This is the issue that truly needs to be addressed.

-Alex Dohety


September 11th, 2008
8:23 a.m.
Flag as offensive

I'm betting that in a year news outlets will begin chiding themselves for their lopsided coverage of this election. (Not unlike they did for their lopsided coverage at the beginning of the war.) I'm a graduate of KU's J-school and follow several news outlets very closely. There is definitely more good coverage of Obama. McCain story headlines often have a negative word in them even if they story is positive. (Not much the writer can do about that.)
You're right though, Palin is getting favorable coverage too. I don't think it is as much a grand conspiracy to elect Obama or glorify Palin rather that they are younger, appeal to more viewers/readers and are sexier news choices.
But, that only explains the numbers not the content. I think many people blow the influence of the network out of proportion. A vast majority of journalists are completely free to write on whatever they want (I would be interested in seeing how papers are assigning the election beats though). The problem is that many of those journalists are pro-Obama. News papers have also taken more of an advocacy turn in the past few years. This could be a symptom of that as well.
Bottom line: We are witnessing some very poor news coverage.


September 11th, 2008
8:32 p.m.
Flag as offensive

What about the fact that Obama was part of a much longer contest to win his candidacy? There was a time this year where the stories were about Clinton and Obama nonstop and McCain was almost forgotten for a while. I'm pretty sure that skews the results a bit. I wonder how many times Hillary shows up in the respective media archives.


September 12th, 2008
12:33 a.m.
Flag as offensive

I have 100 pennies, you have 50 nickels, therefore I'm a richer man than you. 100 is greater than 50. Same basic argument you're making. How many articles are pro, how many are neutral, and how many are negative for each candidate? Research that, because otherwise you're making sensational statements with the idea of correlation equals causation. Consider the elongated battle between Hillary and Obama (the only really serious candidates, even since day 1 everyone knew one of them would be the democrat of choice) versus the relatively short battle between multiple Republicans. Consider also the exact same claim was made in 1999 by Bush's supporters, yet a later study determined the percentage of positive media for Bush was substantially greater than the positive media for McCain.

In conclusion, you're twisting the data.


September 12th, 2008
12:34 a.m.
Flag as offensive

I meant Gore, not McCain in my next to last sentance.



Monday, August 3, 2009

Picture Of The Day

Yes, that's the "racist" Sgt. Crowley helping Professor Gates, the man he supposedly victimized, down the stairs after the beer summit. Note Obama's level of concern.

Branding Myself

No, not with a cattle brand.
The journalist today is not just a reporter, not just a photographer, not just an editor. We're trained to be it all, to be able to take a camera out on a story and shoot some, or take a notebook to a shoot and be able to write a quick story about it.
Therefore, during my time at the journalism school at KU, I was trained to do all of the above. Photography was a hobby before, but now it's part of my personal portfolio.
Part of my personal brand, if you will.
So since I am currently looking for a job where I can practice all those things and get paid for it, I am getting my brand out there in case anyone sees it and likes what they see. It's not enough in today's world to just graduate college and find a job and work at that job for 40 years and then retire.
Although I wish I could.
I have to think differently, operate via the new version of social interaction.
That's why I started this blog, and that's why I'm selling some of my photos online. The more my name is out there on the web, the more likely someone will see it and pick it up.
So here is a list of my online content, surf and enjoy.

Online Photo Store: http://ctsommerville.etsy.com
The Reactor 1.0 (Kansan): http://www.kansan.com/blogs/reactor