January 2004 Archives

The secret of success is never to lie. Instead, it is to know if, when, and how much truth to tell.

Someone told me today that this break in blogging has been one of my longest to date. I apologize. We're not all perfect, although some of us are, and others of us claim to be. I received two comments on my blog, one of which was positive, and the other of which was more of an observation. The first person said that they really liked my blog. The second person commented on what they felt were my sometimes extreme tendencies to take seemingly inconsequential things or ideas and dissect and analyze them. I'm very glad that this notion gets through to readers. There's always more to reality than what is superficially apparent. I would also like to insist that you give me feedback on my blog if you have any. I am especially looking for feedback--positive and negative--from those under age 18. Danke! Oh, and in Norwegian, the latest language I'm learning: Hvordan har du det? Bra? Ikke så bra? Hva heter du?

Given the title of this post, you're probably thinking, "Oh God! Now he's gone communist! All that Russian history has gone to his head!" Well, before you start lunge for your phone or email client to set me straight on the devilry of the communist system, let me eliminate your fears. This post has nothing directly to do with communism vs. capitalism and that lousy debate that's been overdone beyond imagining. It may have implications, but you know that in the world of words implications are, of course, inconsequential. So here is my brief exposition, direct from mi cabeza.

Let's consider the case of our current capitalist socio-economic system. I've thought about this, and I'm not sure if I'm right. But it seems to me that this system relies very much on an increase in output to survive. If you don't increase output, then there is no return on capital, and you don't have capitalism. So how do you increase output? You can increase input, and you can increase productivity. This brings me to my first point. On earth, there are finite resources. In the past humans societies have rarely reached the point where resources are a debilitating factor in their development. This is because past human societies have been comparatively small, and their growth rates have been slow enough to where resources can renew themselves. Our current global society has, oh, maybe 6.2 billion members. This dwarfs all previous humans societies, and depletion of the resources that we need to collectively survive is a legitimate concern. Because of the finite nature of global resources, there will come a point when we are no longer able to increase input into our economy in order to increase output (I'm sorry if people find this whole model simplistic; it is. I've never had any formal economics instruction). This will theoretically result in a scenario where an increase in productivity is the only mode by which to increase overall output. Our current rate of technological progress seems to suggest that it might be possible to deal with increasing demand and the capitalist need for growth by increasing productivity alone. Yet, I wonder how effective or sustainable this will be. Indeed, the act of increasing productivity consumes resources too. I'm not sure what this means for the future. I'll leave that for the reader to decide.

This brings me to my second and more interesting point. We have established that capitalism is heavily reliant on growth for its success. Population experts have estimated that the global population growth rate has now stopped increasing. Estimates also predict that the global population will round off and stabilize within the next hundred years, probably around 9 billion people. It's essentially impossible to predict growth after that. If birthrates in developing countries continue to decline, or disease becomes widespread, we may even see some population decline. Please do keep in mind, however, that population estimation is more like voodoo art than science. But let's say that these estimates hold true. Let's also say that after the population rounds off, it holds steady, fluctuating somewhere between 8 and 9 billion people. That seems reasonable to me. Remember that capitalism relies on growth to succeed. Ahhh... yes. Now you see a little problem. Part of an economy's ability to sustain growth is have a matching demand. If you have lots of growth and little demand, then you end up with scenarios like the Panic of 1893 and the Great Depression (I'm oversimplifying again, but bear with me. There was also major debt and other things that precipitated these crisises). So how do you get growth in demand? The logical reasons that I can think of are population growth and quality of life growth. If population growth grinds to 0, that means that we will rely solely on a demand for quality of life increases for our economic growth. Once the developing world is brought up to an acceptable level of quality of life, where will demand come from? It is conceivable that the demand for a better quality of life will always remain; after all, life is never perfect. Nevertheless, our limited of resources hinders our ability to develop indefinately. It seems to me that in the future, both the means and the motivation for economic growth could possibly disappear. Is this likely? I have no clue. Is it even probable? I would say yes, but maybe I'm completely wrong... in fact, I'd be surprised if I wasn't. If these things do happen, I'm guessing that this will constitute the end of the capitalist system, and the beginning of an economic system very different than the ones seen in the past 4000 years. It could be for better or for worse. I'd guess for better, but only because I think all of this political and economic competition that has characterized human development is counterproductive (We're studying WWI in US History, and it's a perfect example of this. It was quite possibly the most incredibly stupid war ever... yes... worse than the Civil War. All the millions dead from this war essentially lost their lives over an imperialist squabble. True, WWII was pretty stupid: a crazed German supremacist who wanted to take over the world. But at least you can find a clear good guy and a bad guy; you can justify it to yourself. WWI is just insane.). I think we should just be set down our guns and work together to make everyone happy. Then again, I'm an idealist in that sense. That's simply not how humans are capable of functioning in large societies.

Anyway, that was my latest set of thoughts. Even if they're dead wrong (as they likely are), I hope they help your own thinking in some way.

In a year's time, the ESA probe Huygens will be landing on Titan, Saturn's largest moon. It's currently attached to NASA's Cassini probe. Read more about it at http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEMOGY374OD_index_0.html

Well, well! Howard Dean seems to have slipped precipitously in the final Iowa count, with John Kerry and Edwards doing unprecedentedly well, and Dick Gephardt fading away and probably out of the running. It will be interesting to see who comes out on top in the next few weeks. Even in the most extreme scenario, I'm guessing no candidate will have better than a 20% of being able to beat Bush. Maybe we'll get some more press conferences next term (Bush has set the record for the fewest number of solo press conferences for a president, since the invention of the television (I think he's had 7; his father had over 50)). Oh, and here's an interesting fact that I think is simply funny for any history buffs out there: George "Dubya" Bush (I think it's a rather affectionate title) has set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest him (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

Here's an very interesting point that a reader brought up in a comment to two posts ago. Popular/Modern/whatever-you-like-to-call-it music is perhaps not converging with poetry in the simple way that I mentioned. With the little knowledge that I have, I still believe that the notion of musical evolution in most contemporary music is declining. Perhaps we are not seeing a convergence with poetry in the strict sense, but perhaps we are seeing the creation of a new art form: "poetomusic", if you will. In this so called "poetomusic", it is not the meaning of the words that matters. Rather, it is the sound of the words that matters. As the reader mentions, it's not that the words are meaningless, but there is a convergence of sound and the spoken word.

Now that I think about it, all of this is rather obvious, and I don't know why I'm making such a fuss about it. I think I'm missing the point... because I don't think I've quite decided what the point is, or was, for this whole vein of blog. Maybe I'm losing my mind.

"If you sat a monkey down in front of a keyboard, the first thing
typed would be a UNIX command."

--Bill Lye

Apparently I haven't been blogging enough lately, and apparently the speech and debate tournament entries aren't very interesting, so here's my latest attempt at producing some interesting thoughts.

I listen to a lot of music. I generally listen to 1-2 hours/day on average, and I play an average of about 30 minutes a day (not including rehersals and lessons which total 3 hours/week). I listen because it's fun and nice, and because my teacher claims that I'll never get anywhere without listening to at least an hour a day. He claims to have listened to 5 hours a day just of jazz when he was my age (yes, that includes during school too). Mostly I listen to jazz and some classical because it's what I play and like most. Unlike some people, I try not to be snobbishly inclined toward one particular genre of music, although I do have my preferences. I will also admit that I don't listen to very much popular music, despite the fact that this entry will attempt to loosely analyze it. I have a few popular music CDs on my computer, I listen to all of the CDs that my sister has be burn for her, and occasionally I will listen to a popular music radio station. The reason that I do all of this is simple: to broaden my musical tastes and understanding; to see just what it is that attracts people towards types of music that may not be my favorites.

In my experience with popular music I developed an interesting idea. Let me make a rather radical proposition to the reader: popular music (we're talking about the sort of post-1985 post-funk rock/pop music that you hear on a lot of radio stations) has in fact become much less music than poetry. I'm not trying to convince you that music is now all of a sudden poetry, but the musical element to this genre seems to be taking a back seat to lyrics, or poetry. Try listening to a mid-1980s U2 track and comparing it with a rock/pop track of today (one that's not disgustingly saccharine). Although the 1980s music has a notably harder edge to it, it is hard to tell a major difference. In my experience, the musical base of this modern music is not very diverse, while the diversity of lyrics is huge. In fact, to most listeners of this music that I know, the two most important things about a track is its lyrics and beat. You can find lyrics on all sorts of things, and many of them are quite inventive.

In the history of the jazz idiom, it is notable that the popular strain of the music was always chronically uninventive in a musical sense, while the harder avant-garde edge pushed the limits of the established order. True, there were great jazz singers, but the most cutting-edge of the music rarely sported vocals, and rarely was accepted by the masses. It could be that this rock/pop music with which I have experience is similar to the stagnant toned-down pop of the jazz eras. But if this is so, where is the cutting edge of music today? (I know, I'm majorly digressing and the orginal structure and focus is all messed up, but that's what blogs are all about, right?) Where are the Charlie Parkers sitting in their closets in New York's slums, reinventing the established musical forms? I don't know, I'm not sure there are any. Let me know if you find any. So here's a new idea. There is no new majorly innovative music. There is rock/pop: clever poets who know chords. There is rap: rarely clever poets who know someone, who knows someone, who knows someone who can man an electric drum machine and synthesizer tracks. Jazz is dead aside from a few professionals reincarnating covered territory and hordes of students like myself. Classical is left to arrangers. Then there's world music. To me it's the most compelling in terms of its musical explorability. There's virtually infinite depth of folk music to draw upon. But several obstacles still remain: it needs to gain mainstream commercial acceptance in some form (even a watered down one); it needs to be raised to a level of respectability in terms of serious listening and study; it needs to achieve a steady rate of evolution and growth; and (not necessarily, however) it needs to be able to succeed in providing material for extended works (like classical symphonies, or Ellington's suites). The more I think about it, world music seems like it might actually succeed as the next big musical genre. I mean think about it. We're becoming a more interconnected world, so it would make sense that various musical traditions would sort of merge into a worldly stew. Then again, the only world music I listen to is this really wierd Malian pop and Pink Martini (which gets shelved under "rock"). And the only person who listens to any world or ethnic music that I know of are Julien's parents and my mom (who only listens to things that are Irish. She loves everything that's Irish, even the cursed Celtic harp. I keep telling her that she should move back to the motherland.)

So essentially, as usual, I have wasted a small fraction of your valuable time by coming to absolutely no conclusion. This is quite possibly the worst blog entry I've ever made. Man, it's awful! I envy you if you've actually made it here. It's like a live uncensored stream of bits from my head. Now that I've given you the thoughts, you'll just have to think up the conclusion for yourself. It's called "Do It Yourself Blog-Surfing".

I think space exploration is generally a good idea. Retrieving information about other planets and space allows us to confirm and improve scientific knowledge, and new inventions are often created in the process of creating space technology. Plus, NASA provides lots of scientists with good jobs.

Recently, George W. Bush announced his plans for increased space exploration, focusing on putting a space station on the moon, and sending humans to Mars. Yes, it is true that I think space exploration is good, but this plan is utter lunacy. I say this not because I don't like George W. Bush (although this statement may be true), but because human spaceflight carried to this degree is incredibly stupid. There is very little that humans can do on another planet that unmanned robots cannot. In fact, robots may be able to do quite a bit more. In essence, there is no reason why we should send humans rather than robots into space. In the president's address, he touched on this by asserting some nebulous claim that the human spirit of exploration cannot be assuaged by exploration per robots. This still presents no fundamental logical reasoning for why to send humans to Mars. The fact remains that 2/3 of all Mars missions have failed, and human spaceflight is extremely dangerous. Why would we endanger people for no reason? This I cannot determine.

It takes landers about 8 months to reach Mars with current propulsion technology. Consider how much more fuel will be needed to create lift for a vehicle that will be able to sustain multiple humans on an 8 month (at least) mission. Unless we construct the craft in space (which would cause the need the construction of yet another human space facility), this plan seems extremely infeasable. As for the proposed station on the moon, all I can say is "WHY?" Apparently it would be used as a launching pad for a mission to Mars. If there is no reason to go to Mars, why should we be building space stations on the moon. I do not believe that spaceflight is safe enough to be sending humans into space. The only reason that we did it in the 1960s and 1970s was because of the space race with the Soviet Union. That was incredibly stupid (the stupidity is compounded by the fact that the Saturn V was entirely analog). Again, there was not fundamental reason why we did it, other than to say "We did it!"

All of this simply does not make sense. I can only surmise that this is a tactic of George W. Bush for the coming election. Space exploration with humans is very cool, even though not logical. I mean, it's very difficult not to think of Star Trek and what it would be like to travel to other planets etc. This dream of humans in space tends to conjure up visionary and patriotic feelings, which are beneficial to the Bush campaign. But Star Trek isn't real, and other planets cannot naturally sustain humans. Most people probably don't conciously realize this though. I was talking to my mom who have been transformed into somewhat of a passive Bush supporter, and she wasn't even sure if there was oxygen or not on Mars! George W. Bush has found the perfect niche that he can exploit for popular support, which rests not at all in reason, but in emotional inspiration.

heart - transitive verb meaning to love, e.g. "I heart you"

This usage seems to have taken root as a primarily on the internet.

You know you have a good English teacher when, in addition to having multiple masters degrees and shouting "Rosseau!" at you, he/she writes in his/her spare time, and let's his/her classes read his/her work and critique it.

In a previous entry I spoke of dominant chords, which a reader seemed to have misunderstood. Technically, I should been referring to dominant seventh chords which are composed of a major triad with the addition of a flatted seventh. Dominant seventh chords are composed of the 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the mixolydian scale of the root. For example, a C7 chord is composed of C, E, G, and Bb. I was not referring to major chords, nor was a referring to "dominance" as a relation between two chords. So, back to my original point: playing a totally random progression of dominant 7th chords will inevitably sound good. It is an interesting phenomenon. Try it sometime.

I was reading information about the lift vehicle for the mars rovers. These are relatively small boeing rockets. Nevertheless, the combined force of all of the fuel and engines used is 6.5 meganewtons. Think of that.

My math teacher is terrible. She is the worst teacher I have ever had. This is not an exaggeration. She is having to teach the "Prerequisites" chapter 3 times because people do so poorly on the tests. And it's not because the tests are particularly hard or the students are particularly stupid. None of the other teachers who teach Precalculus have these problems. I either ace or get high A's on all of the tests, but that is only because I am blessed (thank fate and fortune!) with capabilities of mathematical reasoning which permit me to teach myself from the book and tune in only occasionally to what the teacher is actually saying. It is impossible to expect everyone to follow in this suit. Very few people are actually capable of learning something entirely from a book. If this were the case we would not have schools or any institutions of learning. Humans differ in their styles of learning, and it is indisputable that a more holistic mode of learning which incorporates human interaction as well as individual thinking is ideal for teh comprehension of ideas. Needless to say, I am thankfully one of the few people whose grade is not suffering because of my teacher's blazing incompetance. I don't mean to hold it against her as a person. But let's face it, she should not be teaching math at this level, let alone at any level. The decision to have her teach this course has been a grave and inexcusable misfortune to at least 100 students. For the large quantity of people who are failing, this course represents the end of the road in math. Unless they have a particular love for mathematics, the multitudes of people who are struggling will see their vain efforts as merely the limits of their mathematical reasoning, and from this experience will be inclined to never willingly enroll in math again. The teacher's brazenly deconstructive attitude of sarcasm and dull wit preach maxims like, "math is not fun", "not that you will ever use this", "I am a mean person", etc. While this may be true in the experiences and opinions of some, teaching while preaching this dogma is counterproductive toward the goal of any teacher: to teach. These simple actions for a teacher are of capitally offensive hypocracy in terms of the goals of their job. It also accomplishes the greatest crime in the world of math and academia: to discourage and even destroy, rather than encourage the further pursuit of learning. I will be the first to admit that math beyond 1st year algebra is totally useless in 99% of the real world, but the usefulness of math goes beyond the superficial formulas and theorems on the page. For some, mathematics may be a great obsession or hobby or point of interest, but for everyone it is an exercise in a rational logical thought process which is vital intellectual development. This teacher has destroyed that. It goes beyond diabolical.

You are aware that I am angry. Yes, I am angry because my education is being needlessly attacked, but more so for the sake of others. I feel little to no personal effect for the crimes of my math teacher; it is other who do. I am very rarely angry. Perhaps I will get annoyed from time to time, but I try to rationally reason things, and when I do I usually see that anger is pointless. But I have rationally reasoned and I am still angry. So the question is: what do I do? Since I'm not often angry, I didn't know what to do at first. But then I thought and I thought, and I talked with some people then thought some more. Then I started scaling my ideas to a larger size. And then, things came together. What I am now planning is a massive petition effort at the end of this year to salvage scores of new students from having their interests in mathematics stomped upon and mutilated. I shall have as many people as I can find write letters to the principal, carefully chronicalling these offenses in such quantity and quality as to breed no other opinion but action. I have chosen the end of the year because it seems to be a time when the year is subject to review, people feel the safest making criticism, and teachers can (theoretically, but not practically) be removed. Maybe removal is the right solution, maybe forced migration to a position that requires less advanced explanation (not that precalculus is advanced my any means; it's very rudimentary, but clearly too complex for this teacher). I don't know. Many will find these conclusions hard and cruel. Indeed they are. But it is the least cruel of two options: 1) move/remove the teacher, 2) let countless more students have their interest in math and academics be possibly crushed at this all too crucial age.

Portland usually doesn't get much snow. We might get a flurry or two in a typical winter, and maybe every five or ten years we'll get a big storm with rarely more than 10 inches for the year. Within a day the snow inevitably turns to a giant sheet of ice that slowly thaws over time. Or sometimes it thaws very quickly and there are large floods. This year has been somewhat different as most of you are certainly aware. My reckoning has logged about 12 to 14 inches of snow for the winter, and there has been snow on the ground since Dec. 28th. School was cancelled yesterday and remains so today. A 4-6 inch layer of dry snow and freezing rain is encrusted in a centimeter or two of ice forming a neat, clean blanket over the world. Sure I am happy to get out of school and play in the snow and ice, and to drink hot chocolate and tea after wandering in temperatures that range from 10-20 F. But there is something unique about snow in a place which rarely gets any. The city has virtually been shut down, and the ice has rendered most government agencies and businesses closed. The streets are hazardous for driving. A small child died in eastern Oregon. And despite the chaos of a debilitating winter storm, people seem happier and almost more at ease in the ice lock than ever. I walked with Erin up to the top of the hill to meet my mom at a coffee shop on her way home from work, and then we went over to the market to get a little food. The streets were more bustling with people of all sorts and enterprises than even occurs on the most pleasant spring or fall day. They were devoid of almost any cars but filled with walkers, sledders, and people enjoying the climatic aberration, skipping and missing school and work alike. Papaccino's, Starbucks, (the only city in the world that can support more coffee shops per intersection than Portland is Seattle. It has something to do with the climate I think) and the market were filled with more people than I'd ever seen before lounging, shopping, eating, drinking, and talking. Yet more noticeable than the quantity of people was the overwhelming personability that a little dose of common inconveniance seemed to arouse. How ironic that people should seem their happiest in what might seem to be a less than perfect moment. When else would you find a time where people let their dogs roam free and no one cares, or where people rush outside to meet and chat with even their most seemingly psycho neighbors, instead of avoiding them? I think you wouldn't. As odd as it is, snow has this electrifying effect that renders our busy modern lives so worthless that people gleefully revert to a more natural and human state.

Well it looks like we've got about 6 inches of "stuff" on the ground. I'm thinking it's about half snow and half freezing rain. It's pretty cool because walking in it is like walking in sand. School was cancelled today, and it probably will be tomorrow. I'm going to go insane if school is cancelled tomorrow though. This is because I have to give my US history presentation on Thursday. Since you get your topic (1 of 8 possible topics) the day before--when there will be no school--I will have to prepare for all 8. I also left all the outlines for these presentations at school, so I'll have to kill a couple trees in order to print out the 100 or so pages that compose my outlines.

It was 12 degrees Farenheit when I came home from school today. The worst storm of the century is predicted to hit tonight. The previous "worst storm of the century" hit last Wednesday. And the "worst storm of the century" previous to that was on the preceeding Sunday and Monday. Yes indeed. Snow and lots of it is coming my way. Life is good.

This is an unauthorized reproduction of what my English teacher deems to be the worst essay (if it even deems the respect of that title) anyone has ever dared to turn in. The brief work was composed in the duration of a lunch period: approximately 35 minutes. It is an imaginative short—very, very short, in fact—story. As you will perhaps feel, this tripe is so bad... that... it’s almost good. In the spirit of the original, all misspellings and grammatical irregularities are preserved, and the discretion to interpret their intended meanings is left in the hands of the reader. Cheers.

“Gray woke up and rubbed his eyes. He was tall and didn’t like to get up early. But, he had school and there was no choice but to face the day. So, he lifted his three hundred pound frame fomr the mattress and prepared to face the day.

Gary’s breath was terrible. “Must have been the Slim-Jims with mustard I ate last night before bed”, he thought. “Oh well, I guess I’ll brush my teeth,” he said to no on in particular.

Gray got dressed. He liked to wear bright clothes. Today, he chose bright orange and bright blue. He looked in the mirror and thought, “Damn, I look so good.” He couldn’t wait to get to school and show off his pimping good looks.

Fortunly for him, Gray had a great car. His dad was sort of wealthy, as he owned the local sponge store. When Gray turned sixteen, his dad, the Sponge King, bought him a cherry red convertible Corbette. “I am one hot sponge kid,” thought Gray.

Gray pulled into the parking lot of his school. As usual, there were lots of kids fighting for available spots. Gray didn’t mind waiting. His first class of the day was the worst. English.

Finally though, old Gray found a spot and pulled his killer car into it. Missy, a tall, hot, brunette saw him pull in and said, “Gray, you’re going to be late.” He knew that what she meant was that she was hot for him. All the ladies were. Even if they didn’t say so, he knew it. He had that kind of effect on the women. At least, he was pretty sure of it. He had never actually been on any kind of a “date”.

Gray walked into his English class like a minute late. “Gray, you are like a minute late”, said his English teacher Mr. Major. “I know Mr. Major, but I couldn’t find a spot.” “Oh well,” said Mr. Major. “I guess you’ll get detention.” “Yah, I guess so.”

During class all Gray could think about was getting back into his killer car. He loved to drive it. When the bell rang he said screw it and skipped the rest of the day. He got to his car and just drove. He went as far as he could in that car. “God, I love to drive.” He said this out loud, not caring if anyone heard him in the cars next to him.

Well, unfortunately, next to him in the next car was a guy in a really fast Porshe. The guy said, “Hey, you think you’re car is all that?” “Yes I do” said Gray. “Well, I am positive I could kick your butt in my Porshe” said the guy. “All right,” said Gray. “Lets get it on.” Sadly, Gray was a little too fast for his own good. They crashed together going like 76 miles an hour. Gray died going to the hospital. It was a sad day for the Spong King when he got the news.”

This is the 300th entry on Adams Blog. Here's a bit of interesting music theory I learned this week for the musically inclined. It is impossible to play any sequence of dominant chords that don't sound good together. Try it out, just start playing random dominant chords on a piano. It always sounds good! Even the combinations that work the least, still don't sound bad: they "build tension"! It's pretty cool.

As the yearly lists, statistics, and figures come in, here's an interesting piece of useless junk. AOL blocked 500 million spams for its users in 2003. That's 75-80% of all their email traffic. And think of how many spams they missed... That's 40 spams per day, per user. Spam is out of control.

Author: Ted Gioia
Pages: 471 (including indicies, appendicies, etc.)
Publisher: 1997, Oxford University Press
ISBN: 0-19-509081-0 / 0-19-512653-X (Pbk.)
List Price: $15.95 (Pbk.)
Amazon.com Price: $11.87 (Pbk.)

Grade: B

Ted Gioia's The History of Jazz is an authoritative work that, although not comprehensive, is a wonderful volume for one desiring a thorough introductory history, criticism, and analysis of the jazz idiom.

The book chronologically tracks the evolution of jazz from its infancy in the ragtime tradition to the avant-garde splinters of the 1970s and beyond. With 75 pages of good annotation, a "further reading" list, a "recommended listening" list, an index, and an index of songs and albums, Ted Gioia has created a convenient and useful reference in addition to a history.

Jazz history is a very difficult subject to write about because of the music's controversy and underground status as the music of African Americans. This is especially true during the period from 1890-1920 when the music was confined to the more questionable areas of cities and had not yet developed respect as a major music form. Even in these fuzzy periods, Gioia seems to neither overstate the truth, nor come up empty handed for information. The emphasis on providing the reader with sources of listening material often gives the reader a head start on finding works of obscure but seminal figures.

Most jazz histories suffer noticeably from being overly opinionated. The History of Jazz does a fairly good job at maintaining objectivism while still providing meaningful analysis of the music. Towards the end of the book, Gioia falters somewhat in this regard while describing the fractured schools that compose the final chapter of jazz history. He seems most biased against the neo-traditionalist movements, while offering more support for fusion and free jazz forms. This isn't surprising however, considering how jazz players have been consumed in controversy regarding their music's fracturing since the late 1960s. More than anything, Gioia takes a progressivist view on jazz, which is probably why he seems biased against the neo-"trad" jazz.

While offering much for the musician and non-musician alike, The History of Jazz takes a mainstream approach by skirting music theory whenever possible. The deepest Gioia delves into music theory is with a superficial half page summary of modal improvisation, and a couple brief mentions of ii-V progressions and substitutions (whose significance he fails to explain, thus failing to show part of the genius of Charlie Parker and the boppers). Nevertheless, a comprehensive treatment of music theory and jazz really is way outside the scope of this book, which really is just a survey of the history of jazz, not an analysis of its underpinnings.

Overall, the book is well written, although sometimes using arcane or superfluous (many of the words weren't in my Oxford dictionary: they're the publishers for heaven's sake!) language, it very poetically and accurately describes in words what can only be truely known in sound. For anyone looking for a broad, concise, and enjoyable history of some of the greatest music on earth, or simply wanting to explore more of the language of jazz, Ted Gioia's is the book to get.

Another 3.4 inches of snow have fallen here by my reckoning. I went out for a walk in Tryon Creek State Park, and it was pretty cool. There are a lot of people doing cross-country skiing. It's been snowing without cease for the past 10 hours. I wish all winter was like this.

Grade: B+

(French with English subtitles)

A fabulous and frantic farce, "The Dinner Game" combines a compelling storyline with execution that is sure to please.

Pierre and his cohorts of Parisian snobbery hold a dinner each week, with each person bringing the biggest idiot they can find. The dinners are truely stunning displays of idiocy with people such as boomerang collecters coming to share their passion for stupidity. But Pierre happens upon someone unusual: someone of the likes of idiocy that he has never seen.

Meet François, an accountant at the Ministry of Finance whoose hobby is building famous monuments out of matchsticks. Although his first creation had just over 300 matchsticks, his masterpiece of the Eiffel Tower had over 300,000, and used 37 bottles of glue. Pierre knows that he has found a gem with François. But soon things go drastically wrong, and Pierre's life thrown into complete chaos with just a couple hours with François.

"The Dinner Game" manages to dish out acting that is on par with its creative script. Thierre Lhermitte dishes out a fine performance, if feeling somewhat uninspired at times. But after all, Lhermitte is a wealthy snobbish sort who's life is thrown into turmoil by his idiot.

Yes, the idiot! Jacques Villeret steals the show as the bumbling François Pignon. He gives a performance that is very alarmingly, well, stupid in every way. It is hard to imagine a more brilliant job done at creating the passion for the irrelevant, detachment from reality, and disasterous untimely enthusiasm of François Pignon.

Solid support is shown from Francis Huster and Daniel Prevost playing Just Leblanc ("Just" is his first name) and Cheval respectively. Huster is perhaps too dramatic and unauthentic in his frantic laughing, but otherwise adds a nice grounding for the two leads. Prevost does a masterful jobs portraying Cheval, the ruthless tax auditer who the best inspector the ministry has ("he would audit his own mother").

The film possesses dynamic acting which is set in the classic fashion for a farce. Set almost entirely in one apartment, the simplicity of set lets the acting be displayed to its fullest. It is, in fact, almost more reminiscent of theater than film.

Although "The Dinner Game" begs the title of slapstick, it carefully avoids the extremes reached by such fare as the "Pink Panther" films. This is a welcoming thing to see, but one might easily feel that "The Dinner Game" is perhaps a bit too rudimentary in its humor. But after all, shouldn't a movie about getting the biggest idiots available together for dinner be equally stupid and moronic in every facet of its construction?

Never has idiocy been so great and varied, and never has it been so satisfying.