three fifty nine a.m.

The Revolution Was Televised

Now that both of the major players - sorry Nintendo, but you aren't really taken very seriously anymore - have released their product specs, it's a good time to compare the projected power of each system.

The Xbox 360 is poised to change the face of gaming forever. While technically inferior to the released specifications for the Playstation 3, the Xbox 360 has one major advantage over its competitors: usability. That is to say, the Xbox 360 is poised to take the crown because it's not just a powerful game playing machine, it's designed to be a media hub; a consolidation of hi-def content (like movies and games) with the focus on user freedom.

The new system offers hi-def games - at 720p or better for every single title - and Dolby 5.1 surround - also mandatory for every game released on the console. The console is slated to ship with a 20gb hard drive which will be "easily upgradable" (the PS3 is set to include a laptop form hard drive, which are traditionally more expensive to replace) and will offer the user myriad of functions: video storage, and audio storage - which will play a bigger part now that every game shipped will support custom soundtracks. The system can also be used as a streaming device; the user can share movies and music on their PC and play them back on their Xbox 360.

It is clear that the utilization of the internet and related technologies - like wi-fi (802.11x), which will drive the consoles controllers - are what separate the system from the rest of the pack. Microsoft has decided to give the user many features out of the box, and let the consumer interact with these features as they see fit. That is to say, that Microsoft intends to let the consumers define their system and "make it theirs" - as J Allard, the brain behind the Xbox 360, is fond of saying.

I see nothing similar from the Sony camp.

While the Playstation 3 is amazing on paper, it's the implementation of these features that will set the systems apart. Sony is a powerful company, and they are not about to let Microsoft innovate in the industry they have dominated for the past decade. The system will support Blu-Ray discs - a new media format which is capable of storing six times the amount of data a DVD can - and offer complete backwards compatibility all the way down to the PSX. The system will support many interfaces and storage devices which will help Sony quell the force of the 360.

The Playstation 3 will be a powerful game machine with a focus on powerful software instead of operability. While there are many interesting features - like support for seven Bluetooth driven controllers per console (which begs the question, "Who wants to play seven people on one tv?"), Compact Flash and Memory Stick support, a laptop hard drive (size unknown), and support for 1080p display (which probably none of your televisions or LCD monitors support, even if they are HDTV compatible) - there has been little talk about how these features will be used.

The Playstation 2 was equipped with two USB ports, a hard drive bay, and room for a network device, but support for these interfaces never really caught on with developers. Instead of focusing on what the system supports Sony should be focusing on what that means, and how the new technology can be implemented. Many of the reported features - like audio and video content storage - are similar to that of the Xbox 360, but Microsoft has already discussed how it plans to integrate these concepts into the user experience.

I used to consider myself a Sony "fanboy," one of those guys who hated every other system for no real reason at all. I refused to buy an Xbox or even play Halo, on the grounds that the Playstation 2 was a better machine for playing games. It's interesting now that I'm a few years older, that the features of the systems not directly associated with gameplay excite me so much. I'm not content with just playing the game anymore, I'm excited by the ways I can play my games. It's the innovation of the gameplay, the various ways in which I can play the game, which excite me the most. The quality of the software will ultimately decide the winner in the minds of most gamers, but I have my eye on usability and innovation.

We know that these systems are both capable of amazing graphics, amazing gameplay, amazing quality. Now with most game publishers porting their titles to every console it doesn't even matter what system you buy the game for, the draw becomes what you can do with your console that the other console can't. We don't know exactly how each company will utilize their attributes. At this stage in the game the Xbox 360 has me much more excited then the Playstation 3, simply because they are taking consoles and "gaming" in a completely new direction.

Integration and interconnectivity will be imperative in the next-gen console race, and the company that can master these concepts will prove the victor of the next console war. Sony has the power and the underlying technology to make a move on the well established Xbox Live and the idea of interconnectivity, but I have a feeling their eyes are focused on numbers and graphs instead of on innovation. They have managed to destroy systems based solely on their software and relative power in the past, but this next battle will be less about the aesthetics of gameplay and more about the way you play the game.

Do you like to hurt?

Bright Eyes with The Faint, and Special Guests Her Space Holiday
Digital Ash In A Digital Urn Tour
The Showbox - Seattle, WA
May 8, 2005
Set List

Tonight I had the pleasure of seeing Conor Oberst and his motley and ever changing backing band, play in support of "Digital Ash In A Digital Urn"; one of two full length releases which launched sometime in January. The Faint opened - several of the members including the drummer, bassist, and keyboardist played behind Oberst for the Bright Eyes set - with a pretty astonishing reception from the crowd. As usual the attendants were the only thing between myself and a good time, but I did my best to focus on the artists instead of the spastic black clones that surrounded me. It was hard, but I managed.

The Faint had everybody dancing. I'm still not sure if that was a good thing or a bad thing, I tend to lean toward the latter. I've decided that there should be rules for conducting yourself at a concert - or anywhere really. The cardinal rule, so to speak, would be abstaining from any activity which could potentially disrupt or ruin the experience of another attendant. I would call staring at the floor, throwing arms about and into the air, major disruptions to my experience. Don't get me wrong, dancing is well and good (for those who enjoy it), but when you aren't even watching the band perform what's the point of being at the concert? Couldn't you just throw the disc in and start dancing around your bedroom, would that not be the exact same thing? A concert is for watching performers, not for standing in a circle with your girlfriends singing along like it's Britney Spears or any other top 40 artist.

After an hour and a half the Faint stopped playing. They covered a Neutral Milk Hotel song, "Holland, 1945", which basically gives them instant credibility in my book. The only thing that wasn't cool about the cover is that they didn't really make it their song, it wasn't much different from the original version. While a cover doesn't necessarily require changes, I think a band like the Faint could have done an interesting interpretation in their style. Another problem was that the singer forgot the lyrics. Anyway, after an hour and a half the Faint finally concluded their set, and the wait for Conor Oberst began.

After what seemed like an eternity (somewhere in the ballpark of forty minutes) the band - keyboarist, basist, two drummers, trumpet player, two guitarists (including Nick Zinner of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs rocking a Gretsch, barely visible behind the trumpet player and some equipment)/ keyboardist / moog players, a violinist, and a celloist (Gretta Cohn of Cursive) - took the stage and started Time Code without Oberst on stage, as a projected movie counted down to his arrival. When the black, thin, pale figure finally was visible a wave of prebuscent cheers enveloped the audience. The show had begun.

Most people I talk to about "Digital Ash In A Digital Urn" don't like it, especially in comparison to "I'm Wide Awake It's Morning," and to them I say . . . well I'm not entirely certain what I say, but I think both records are wonderful. While "I'm Wide Awake" tends to be an optimistic call for change and political examination, "Digital Ash" is an existential and introspective record. I've seen Oberst three times this year; twice in Texas and now once in Seattle. Surprinsingly, the shows in Texas felt much more interactive, and lively.

Conor said very little between songs, besides brief summaries of song meanings or to utter a thank you. There was nothing else said, and while he wasn't visibly drunk as he was in Dallas, he seemed completely despondent and lifeless. While I don't personally care what he does on stage I tend to enjoy his drunken quips and occasional banter with the crowd. It felt as if he really wasn't playing for anybody but himself tonight and that's what made this concert something special to see. It was some kind of exorcism, a cathartic release, and we were all along for the ride.

Throughout his set he played two old songs: "Neely O'Hara" from the "Every Day And Every Night" EP, and "Lover I Don't Have To Love" from "Lifted Or The Story Is In The Soil Keep Your Ear To The Ground." Which were the only two songs I really expected him to play - since those are the only non B-Side (like "Burn Rubber" or "Cremation") tracks which would compliment the "Digital Ash" tracks. He changed the lyrics to both songs, and changed the structure of "Neely O'Hara" - which was very cool. The lyric changes in "Lover I Don't Have To Love" seemed to reflect Oberst's self loathing; instead of being the victim he now feels he's no different from everyone else.

Since I like "Digital Ash" I loved the show - the crowd honestly didn't seem so enthused. There were periodic requests for "Lua," despite there being no acoustic guitars in sight, and despite the fact he has already toured in support of "I'm Wide Awake." It really felt like people were there to see him, they didn't really care what he was playing - and they obviously didn't realize he was supporting "Digital Ash," and no folk songs were going to be played. That's the problem with Bright Eyes, people like him for the wrong reason. Girls want to fuck him and guys want to be him, never really taking the time to listen what he's trying to say. I concede that I would like to be like him, but I want to be like him for a completely different reason. Bright Eyes isn't about being cool or fighting in with the indie kid crowd, Oberst isn't just another sad guy with a guitar and a pen.

The message is there, but there are no ears to the ground . . .

BE ON THE LOOKOUT: Pictures forthcoming if the computer gods allow it. Thanks go to Ed and his mighty little camera for those.

Thickfreak This

The Black Keys: sounds of the past, for the future 

Every time I turn on the radio or my television, I am suddenly struck with panic: is this music? Do we call this art, or even creativity? How many versions of the same band must there be—yes, I’m looking at you mall punk, nu metal, “rap,” and even “indie” rock. When I ponder these questions I become utterly depressed by the sheer vapidity of the popular music scene, and the “people” who sincerely like it. But it only takes one band like The Black Keys to restore my faith in creative forces and ingenuity in music.

The Black Keys are like nothing you’ve ever heard; at least not in your lifetime. Armed with only a drum set and a guitar, the Black Keys are a duo with more energy and inspiration then most four or three piece bands, and are impressive upon juxtaposition. The critical acclaim they’ve received from magazines, like Spin or Rolling Stone, and peers – like the Olympia based indie rock band Sleater-Kinney, who took them on tour in 2003 - is enough to turn your head. But it’s not enough for most readers or bystanders to seek the band out and give them a serious listen.

This is your cue to start listening.

There’s almost nothing you can lose, and I would wager my musical reputation on them. The band couldn’t be more accessible; they borrow from guitar legends like Hendrix but manage to maintain equilibrium through simplicity, rooted largely in traditional blues rock. There is nothing pretentious or ostentatious here. Their latest full length release, Rubber Factory, will set you back a mere twelve dollars in most record stores – even monolithic corporate chains like Virgin Megastore. Tickets to their show were only twelve dollars, and I can tell you one thing; that is arguably the best twelve dollars I have ever spent.

If you really appreciate music and consider bands to be artists, not products, then you will feel your dulled senses snap back to reality once you hear a Black Keys track. You will suddenly realize why you like music in the first place, and why artists like this deserve every penny they get, and why they can never be compared to the drivel on television. These two guys have more heart and soul then any band I have ever seen, and it is your duty as a human being to give them the credit they deserve.

Catch a show or buy a record, support talent. Trade in that Snow Patrol CD – or if you want to do the entire world a favor destroy them in the best way you see fit – find some money somewhere (the couch is often a treasure trove of loose change) and buy just one record or EP. It’s time to reject the radio and MTV; yes, some of you are entering uncharted waters, but the possibility that you just might find something worthwhile in that bleak sea of sound is worth the effort. Even if you don’t find something you like at least you were making the choice, instead of trying to keep your head above water.