Today was quite the mental workout.  In the morning, I finished what became a 25 page research paper on gender coding in Toyota advertising.  It was actually quite interesting analyzing print texts.  Because it is a multinational, and large corporation in general, it must appeal to a broad customer base.  Representations of women ranged from sophisticated with authority in the household, to mere objects of sexual desire.  For men, Toyota represented them as elemental, rugged and fun-loving, more apt to relinquish their societal inhibitions and do childish things.  That paper was due at noon.

To celebrate, I just finished what became an 8 page dialogue concerning American pop culture and its dissemination abroad.  Wonderful stuff.  That one is due ultimately at midnight tonight, but I was able to finish and pass it in not too long ago.  An extended nap is in my immediate future.  Excuse me while I go take a coma.

Anyway, finals are next week.  As a result this weekend will be quite chock full of super studying and such.  Joy!

I live on the edge like you have no idea.

It seems a bit weird recommending a television show that’s already been cancelled.  But check out Dollhouse.  While Fox is currently playing out its final 6-7 episodes, airing them back-to-back so as to presumably get the whole affair over with, fans like myself are left with a couple questions.

For the uninitiated, Dollhouse is Joss Whedon’s newest series since the infamously short-lived “science fiction western” Firefly.  The show centers around an organization that wipes human’s brains and inserts new personalities for top dollar services.  Participants are called “actives” and can conceivably be turned into anyone, or anything.  Dollhouse deals with issues of consciousness and mind over matter, that a human brain can be programmed and reprogrammed like a computer.  Various moral and ethical objections are raised, ignored, and exploited, often to maintain the Dollhouse’s security and anonymity.

But the show was cancelled in November due to exceptionally low ratings.  As is becoming something of a trend, Joss Whedon’s shows are often met with difficulty in securing a large audience and ultimately network confidence.  Which is too bad; he is an excellent writer and brilliant filmmaker in general.  Maybe television as the distribution medium isn’t a great for him, at least anymore.  His mini-film Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog has become wildly popular and that was done on the cheap, directly for the internet.  If only Joss Whedon could just find a way to get his actors and production crew to work for free every time, then his problems would be over.

That seems to be the theme this time around though as O and band mates Brian Chase and Nick Zinner paint a more intimate landscape.  However the result is sometimes unfocused.  For example, “Soft Shock” begins benignly, almost dream-like in composition, but soon the vocals and background diverge.  By song’s end it has forgotten where it perhaps wanted to go and simply adds more and harder layers.  It almost works in a way, but shows that maybe the band isn’t ready to fully commit.

Nowhere though is the need to reject much of O’s riot-girl stigma more apparent than on “Skeletons,” an interlude of sorts that almost evokes an image of valiant young men marching off to battle.  It’s a wonderful spread of sound, epic in aspirations while staying minimalist in composition.  In addition, the band catches another whiff of inspiration with the manic “Dull Life,” a pulsating rhythm punctuated by cerebral stretches of quiet, lyric-driven melodies.

The biggest appeal though is the persistent feeling that there are deeper themes at work.  It’s Blitz! does this well on “Runaway” with vocals taking on a Tegan Quinn-like pleading quality conveying a sincere earnestness and sense of genuine concern.  Likewise for “Hysteric,” a sleepy, indie-tinged exclamation of contentment, Karen O rejects her trademark squeaky, throaty grunts of ecstasy over wildly sparse arrangements for more nuanced, dynamic crooning to craft a less in-your-face number.

Again however, though one could defend the change of tone (often within individual songs themselves) as adaptability and a desire for exploration, the result is  less than what I would like from the group, or at least what they project as their image.

Short Buzz: Harder and faster please, Coldplay already has a chick singer.

Czech it out!

My question revolves around the terminology various companies use in their advertising to describe this part of the year.  The politically correct term is “holiday,” but Walmart in recent years seems to be bucking the trend and using the term “Christmas.”  Considering the demographic Walmart stereotypically caters to, I wonder if they are simply playing to that religious customer base.  Alternatively, are they following the trend of accepting Christmas as a secular American holiday or actually attempting to frame it as such themselves, normalizing it for everyone?  They have seemed to fancy themselves cultural trend-setters as of late with their exact dollar amount prices and updated image geared directly at the middle class, so I wouldn’t be surprised.

My guess though is that if Walmart is to sustain a national campaign, even in the typically more liberal coastal regions, it needs to appease its customer base by projecting a traditional, Christian image.

What separates Clark, (stage name St. Vincent) from her contemporaries, (Feist?) is a distinct ear for odd arrangements.  Not bad, but interestingly chosen at times.  After the light if deliberate walking song “Save Me from What I Want” comes the late-Beatles-channeling fuzz-flourishing proclamation “The Neighbors.”

The highlight here though is “Actor out of Work,” who’s tight and raucous guitars fight for attention with Clark’s subtly patronizing though disbelievingly convinced lyrics and open-mouth vocal delivery.  As a single however it unfortunately falls into the trap of being different enough from the supporting songs to set it apart.  I found myself zeroing in on it, skipping the first three tracks altogether and starting from there.

Further on the record takes a number of turns, many varied enough to keep the momentum flowing.  The wildly chaotic “Marrow” reminded me of Imogen Heap’s “Daylight Robbery.”  Skillfully juxtaposed with the grumbling, airy strings-kissed “The Bed,” whose thematic flourishes transition well into slightly more up-tempo “The Party,” I got the impression that Clark was working hard to keep the ending tracks fresh without coming to a premature ending.  “Just the Same but Brand New” felt like a logical closer with its building climax and drawn fadeout.  But Clark buttons on an epilogue and takes the usual female whisper on a pleasant ride, though with an abrupt ending.

Short Buzz: A collection of well-crafted songs that unfortunately offers only a couple standout tracks.

She first caught my attention with a cover of Death Cab for Cutie’s “I Will Follow You into the Dark,” an interestingly more upbeat rendition that while negating the soberness of the original, pays a nice homage to its songwriting and memorable cadence.

I say relatively unknown because of a lack of notoriety much more north than say, Washington, D.C.  As with many things though, I’m probably understating her following.  In reality, she plays often and has reached as far north as Boston.  She certainly has the ability as well with a keen eye for graphic design and a plethora of songs laced with enough ironic pep to transcend the girl-with-guitar stigma.

However, Allison Weiss is much more effective when the tempo is slow and the mood more intimate.  Her soft, feathery vocals are better suited to relating heartbreaking sentiment on “July 27, 2007” or sending a final plea to a lover who’s ultimately moved on in “The End.”  Not that it’s all doom and gloom, though the tone does seem to slide into sadness and the regrets of summer love more often than not.  Take the track “I’m Ready,” a bouncy little number basically about being impatient, as an example.

Her latest release, Allison Weiss and the Way She Likes It contains the aforementioned songs (save for “July”) and four others.  The E.P.’s highlight would have to be “I Don’t Want to Be Here,” a catchy tune aptly recalling a night of wishing she wasn’t somewhere.  But the remaining tracks fit nicely into the mix and round off a solid offering.  For an expanded lineup, check out her live album entitled Live at Sidewalk NYC, decent pop with witty banter between songs.

Short Buzz: If acoustic singer-songwriter stuff not written to help the author score is your slice of cake, this is your slice of cake.

Their latest effort, The Hazards of Love, fits nicely into the genre but represents a significant departure in delivery.   For one, it is essentially an hour-long epic, more closely resembling the band’s 2004 E.P. The Tain than anything else.  With that in mind however, The Hazards of Love is decidedly not shuffle-friendly and completely convinced of own importance.  Tacky vocal dialogue and an intermittent leitmotif remind the listener that strict attention is required.  Expect a good 45 seconds before the building introduction track “Prelude” even fades in.

Musically, the band has embraced a more guitar-heavy sound over the folk-centric sensibilities established in earlier releases.  Many tracks echo the funkier, dramatically fuller experimentation explored in the previous album, 2006’s The Crane Wife.  Highlights include “The Wanting Comes in Waves / Repaid,” a violently wandering expression of yearning and desperation, atmospheric duet, “Isn’t It a Lovely Night?” and a solid finale-suite.

Newcomers Shara Worden of My Brightest Diamond and Lavender Diamond’s Becky Stark add interesting flavors to the mix.  Worden’s deep, emotive vibrato and killer, you’ll-regret-introducing-me-to-your-mom tone counter front man Colin Meloy’s earnest, though sometimes grating register.

There is a story buried in there, something about a woman named Margaret and her various entanglements with a man named William, a shape-shifting rake and a queen seemingly pulling the strings.  I need not recommend anyone dig deeper into this narrative as the only ones with the desire to do so already have, considering the fan base (myself included) that eats this stuff up.

Short Buzz: An audio epic dripping with irony and tinged with theatrical sensibilities that sort of ignores the whole “single” protocol.

Supporters of net neutrality, President Obama included, counter that providing telecomunnications, wireless, and cable companies with the ability to siphon off and redirect content will stifle creativity, innovation, and the free exchange of information.  They point to the way cable is offered, through staggered package prices containing increasing amounts of content, as the ultimate goal of internet service providers.

There is currently little FCC regulation on the internet.  For the most part, content within is considered free domain and free of restrictions.  With this new plan, certain sites will get priority over others.  Obviously big names like Facebook, Yahoo, YouTube, and Google (who pretty much owns the internet anyway), will be jockeying for top spots among the ranks.  And most likely, the packages you pay for will include some and exclude others.

For example, $19.95 a month may get you Google, YouTube, and 50 other websites.  $39.99 may get you 200.  Perhaps a penalty is imposed if you stray away from your package?  Or access may be completely denied.

As well, I have a hard time imagining heavy restrictions on content will be good for business.  For example, how is a just-starting-out entrepreneur supposed to get his/her foot in the door if no one can visit their site?  Must he first register with Comcast for example and pay essentially advertising fee to keep his site on the visited list?  Right off the bat he’s losing revenue or denied entry into the market as I’d imagine competition would be fierce and subscription fees astronomical.  This would of course trickle down to the consumer eventually as most websites make very little profit but must pay their way in.  Access to Hulu for example might include a membership fee, or YouTube may charge for submitted videos.

Suddenly the amount of content is restricted to an elite.  Certainly it will create specialization and stifle the free market.  Why have two different companies in a service package delivering flowers when one of those spaces can be designated for some other service?   Numbers of short amateur stunt clips and student short films will most likely wane as only the funded content can be uploaded as well.  The internet will see a rapid decrease in viewer-made content as it becomes harder and harder to publish.