Remember back when I used to do that interactive blog game where I would name two of something and ask my readers to name the third using the comments section? Well I only did it two times, so if you don't remember, it's nothing to be ashamed about. Anyway, I always thought if I ever brought it back, I would call it Trifecta!, and here it is again.
The Beatles...Elvis Presley...and ???
No doubt everyone reading this is saying something along the lines of "No fair! The Beatles and Elvis are two other-worldly pop acts, and no one could ever fill their shoes! Don't you remember how Marcellus Wallace's wife famously explained that you could either be an Elvis man or a Beatles man, and everyone was one or the other? Why, then do you subject us to this farce?" (Trust me, everyone is saying something along those lines. Maybe not that exactly, but something along those lines.)
Well anyway, relax. I'm not really going to ask you to fill in that blank. This whole thing has been a clever way to introduce you to a story I find quite remarkable: that Mariah Carey is the third most successful recording artist of all time as measured by number one singles on the Billboard Hot 100. It's true. Read it for yourself!
Some would say, and I would be inclined to agree, that number one hits is not the best way to evaluate an artist's success. What about album sales, or concert ticket revenue, quality of the artist's worst album, critical acclaim, or any number of other categories? These are all worthy criteria, but that's not what I'm interested in at the moment. (And she'd do pretty well with many of those criteria, too.) Suffice it to say that this list, as reported in the story linked above, is hard to argue with: The Beatles (20), Elvis (18), Mariah Carey (16), Michael Jackson (13), The Supremes (12), Whitney Houston and Madonna (11 each).
Can this be true? Is Mariah Carey really that spectacular? Tell me what you think.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Alison Krauss live, Part II
I can see from the comments below that I didn't give the concert quite a fair shake in my first post. I focused too much on the negative. My disappointment stemmed more from the fact that nothing surprised me than from it being bad, which it was not. I stand by my claim that the concert sounded nearly identical to this. Which means it sounded fantastic—for the record the Ron Block/Jerry Douglas solo in "Oh, Atlanta" literally made me cry the first time I heard it—but repetitive.
So without further ado, here's what I most liked about the concert:
1. Dan Tyminski. I knew his voice was good, but I had no idea how good until I saw him locking harmonies and wailing leads in person. His guitar solos were blistering but very tasteful.
2. Jerry Douglas's dobro solo medley. Two of his originals sandwiching Duane Allman's "Little Martha." One of the originals had a hilarious title about monkeys letting the pigs out of the pen or something.
3. The band's banter, especially Ron Block's story about going to Stutzman's where he bought some old fingerpicks and Alison talking about meeting Lou Graham. Yes, that Lou Graham. I did find her personality surprisingly weird (her stories must have been cut from the live CD), but PBS is right; it was quite endearing. It reminded me of a couple friends I have. Just not ones I'd ever associate with Alison Krauss.
4. Of course, Alison's voice. Hard to describe how wonderful it is without resorting to cliches, so I'll just say, "Wow."
I'm sorry I didn't give the concert a fair shake earlier. Most of the blame goes to my misplaced expectations. But I'll give part of it to the two chatty college girls sitting next to us who didn't shut up until the rich suburban soccer moms in front of them (who were trying really hard to look like rich suburban co-eds, and failing) turned around and glared at them. And another small part to the venue, which I'm sure is a great place to see a track meet but is a lousy place to see an acoustic concert.
So without further ado, here's what I most liked about the concert:
1. Dan Tyminski. I knew his voice was good, but I had no idea how good until I saw him locking harmonies and wailing leads in person. His guitar solos were blistering but very tasteful.
2. Jerry Douglas's dobro solo medley. Two of his originals sandwiching Duane Allman's "Little Martha." One of the originals had a hilarious title about monkeys letting the pigs out of the pen or something.
3. The band's banter, especially Ron Block's story about going to Stutzman's where he bought some old fingerpicks and Alison talking about meeting Lou Graham. Yes, that Lou Graham. I did find her personality surprisingly weird (her stories must have been cut from the live CD), but PBS is right; it was quite endearing. It reminded me of a couple friends I have. Just not ones I'd ever associate with Alison Krauss.
4. Of course, Alison's voice. Hard to describe how wonderful it is without resorting to cliches, so I'll just say, "Wow."
I'm sorry I didn't give the concert a fair shake earlier. Most of the blame goes to my misplaced expectations. But I'll give part of it to the two chatty college girls sitting next to us who didn't shut up until the rich suburban soccer moms in front of them (who were trying really hard to look like rich suburban co-eds, and failing) turned around and glared at them. And another small part to the venue, which I'm sure is a great place to see a track meet but is a lousy place to see an acoustic concert.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Alison Krauss live
(And yes, I know this is my second post today since saying I was going to take a break. Well, it turns out that this is pretty relaxing for me.)
Tracey and I went to see Alison Krauss last night.
(Here's another aside. All the hip writers refer to their spouses or significant others by some cool name based on their column's title or something. I will not be following suit because I think that's lame, and it's not as though I'm maintaining a whole lot of anonymity for my family here anyway...but if I were to do that, what would she be called? The Postus Frequentus Babe?)
Anyway, we went to this concert. I have to say, I came away just a touch disappointed. Not disappointed in the way I would have been if they played badly or for only 20 minutes, just disappointed because I went in expecting to be blown away and wasn't.
Here's a brief summary of what I noticed:
1. Everything they played sounded almost exactly like the studio cuts from their CDs. This is impressive in one sense, because they were basically flawless and hit every note. On the other hand, a little diversion from the prepared remarks would have made it much more interesting and enjoyable.
2. As a continuation of point 1, there were no extended solos or jams, which I sort of expected at a bluegrass concert. Not that I've been to many, but my understanding of bluegrass is that it's jam-heavy. This show was absolutely not. I don't think anyone soloed for more than eight bars in any song (other than Jerry Douglas's dobro instrumental). Bummer.
3. They seemed rather uninspired across the board. The tempos were slightly slower than usual, and the "feel" was not very energetic.
4. They were definitely going through the motions on "I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow." Not that I can blame them. How would you like it if you had spent the better part of a couple decades making a name for yourself in the cutthroat Nashville music scene, and you'd really had some success at that level, and suddenly everywhere you went most of the crowd was only there to hear some George Clooney voiceover number? (Well, if you'd made millions because of that voiceover, you might feel pretty okay about it, but you would still get sick of it eventually.) I guess I just wish they had skipped it instead of playing it formulaically and out of obligation. The same was true to a lesser extent of "Oh, Atlanta."
5. Alison Krauss was either very drunk or she is very weird. Tracey and I lean strongly toward the latter, because she just doesn't seem like the hard-partying kind. She told a few stories, and they all seemed to go nowhere, have very little to do with anything else, and they all slid out of her mouth in this slurry drawl. At times it was very dryly funny, and I enjoyed this aspect of the show, but it was very weird.
6. The crowd seemed awfully restless. People were milling around and not paying full attention. The band did not really grab anyone, apparently. Many people left early. (Full disclosure: we left before the encore. The traffic getting in had been dense, and we were both numb from fatigue after our long weekend.)
7. I wish we'd been sitting closer. I was nowhere near close enough to watch fingerings, and they didn't have video screens.
All in all, I still enjoyed the show quite a bit. They are profoundly talented musicians, and as I said earlier, they were nearly flawless. Every vocal harmony was locked in tune, and they missed about two notes on their instruments the whole night. But from our seats, it was only a marginally better experience than watching a live DVD with excellent speakers. I'm glad I got to see her, but I probably won't pay for a ticket to see her again.
Tracey and I went to see Alison Krauss last night.
(Here's another aside. All the hip writers refer to their spouses or significant others by some cool name based on their column's title or something. I will not be following suit because I think that's lame, and it's not as though I'm maintaining a whole lot of anonymity for my family here anyway...but if I were to do that, what would she be called? The Postus Frequentus Babe?)
Anyway, we went to this concert. I have to say, I came away just a touch disappointed. Not disappointed in the way I would have been if they played badly or for only 20 minutes, just disappointed because I went in expecting to be blown away and wasn't.
Here's a brief summary of what I noticed:
1. Everything they played sounded almost exactly like the studio cuts from their CDs. This is impressive in one sense, because they were basically flawless and hit every note. On the other hand, a little diversion from the prepared remarks would have made it much more interesting and enjoyable.
2. As a continuation of point 1, there were no extended solos or jams, which I sort of expected at a bluegrass concert. Not that I've been to many, but my understanding of bluegrass is that it's jam-heavy. This show was absolutely not. I don't think anyone soloed for more than eight bars in any song (other than Jerry Douglas's dobro instrumental). Bummer.
3. They seemed rather uninspired across the board. The tempos were slightly slower than usual, and the "feel" was not very energetic.
4. They were definitely going through the motions on "I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow." Not that I can blame them. How would you like it if you had spent the better part of a couple decades making a name for yourself in the cutthroat Nashville music scene, and you'd really had some success at that level, and suddenly everywhere you went most of the crowd was only there to hear some George Clooney voiceover number? (Well, if you'd made millions because of that voiceover, you might feel pretty okay about it, but you would still get sick of it eventually.) I guess I just wish they had skipped it instead of playing it formulaically and out of obligation. The same was true to a lesser extent of "Oh, Atlanta."
5. Alison Krauss was either very drunk or she is very weird. Tracey and I lean strongly toward the latter, because she just doesn't seem like the hard-partying kind. She told a few stories, and they all seemed to go nowhere, have very little to do with anything else, and they all slid out of her mouth in this slurry drawl. At times it was very dryly funny, and I enjoyed this aspect of the show, but it was very weird.
6. The crowd seemed awfully restless. People were milling around and not paying full attention. The band did not really grab anyone, apparently. Many people left early. (Full disclosure: we left before the encore. The traffic getting in had been dense, and we were both numb from fatigue after our long weekend.)
7. I wish we'd been sitting closer. I was nowhere near close enough to watch fingerings, and they didn't have video screens.
All in all, I still enjoyed the show quite a bit. They are profoundly talented musicians, and as I said earlier, they were nearly flawless. Every vocal harmony was locked in tune, and they missed about two notes on their instruments the whole night. But from our seats, it was only a marginally better experience than watching a live DVD with excellent speakers. I'm glad I got to see her, but I probably won't pay for a ticket to see her again.
A big sigh of relief
What a weekend. Working all day Thursday and Friday, Northeastern Serminary's commencement exercises all day Saturday, preparing for Artisan Church's baptism/dedication service all day Sunday, attending, preaching at, and having our son baptized at that service Sunday night, then off to the Alison Krauss concert afterward.
Needless to say, I'm exhausted.
I may take a week or so off from blogging, since I leave tomorrow afternoon for the Emergent Convention and will be there for the rest of the week. Or maybe I'll grab a wifi connection out there and live-blog the whole thing. I don't really know. Probably something in between.
Anyway, for now I just want to take one big, long nap. I'll probably only get a little, short nap before Abel wakes me up, so I'd better get to it.
Many projects are on the horizon, some of which may make an appearance here from time to time. But not now. For now, Shabbos.
Needless to say, I'm exhausted.
I may take a week or so off from blogging, since I leave tomorrow afternoon for the Emergent Convention and will be there for the rest of the week. Or maybe I'll grab a wifi connection out there and live-blog the whole thing. I don't really know. Probably something in between.
Anyway, for now I just want to take one big, long nap. I'll probably only get a little, short nap before Abel wakes me up, so I'd better get to it.
Many projects are on the horizon, some of which may make an appearance here from time to time. But not now. For now, Shabbos.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Trying to love the Yankees
I've been a Yankees fan pretty much my whole life. But in the last few years, it has gotten increasingly difficult to like them. I'm not sure I'm ready to abandon ship, but I've gotta say that I am more than a bit concerned with their direction lately. I've been concerned with their direction for a few years now, but now I'm concerned they may have gone far enough down the road that it will affect their postseason prospects.
They're not going to be terrible all season, at least not the way they've been so far. I think they'll hit much better. I think they'll pitch a little better. But I'm pretty sure the bullpen isn't going to get any better, at least the part before the final 3-5 outs.
The mid-90s Yankees were a joy to root for, because no matter how much people said Steinbrenner was buying championships, the reality is that he was mostly just paying the talent his organization developed: Jeter, Mo, Bernie, Posada, Soriano, Pettite, etc. But when that unit started to deteriorate, he made the very bad decision to trade very young talent for very old or otherwise risky talent. Did I mention "very"?
And now they're saddled with huge contracts that earn them nothing, especially Giambi and Kevin Brown. This could have been a sub-.500 season in rebuilding for another run with Jeter, Matsui, and A. Rod as the core. Instead, they're wasting the rest of those guys' careers on their way to a (possibly) sub-.500 season that leaves them worse off after it than they are during it. Argh.
They're not going to be terrible all season, at least not the way they've been so far. I think they'll hit much better. I think they'll pitch a little better. But I'm pretty sure the bullpen isn't going to get any better, at least the part before the final 3-5 outs.
The mid-90s Yankees were a joy to root for, because no matter how much people said Steinbrenner was buying championships, the reality is that he was mostly just paying the talent his organization developed: Jeter, Mo, Bernie, Posada, Soriano, Pettite, etc. But when that unit started to deteriorate, he made the very bad decision to trade very young talent for very old or otherwise risky talent. Did I mention "very"?
And now they're saddled with huge contracts that earn them nothing, especially Giambi and Kevin Brown. This could have been a sub-.500 season in rebuilding for another run with Jeter, Matsui, and A. Rod as the core. Instead, they're wasting the rest of those guys' careers on their way to a (possibly) sub-.500 season that leaves them worse off after it than they are during it. Argh.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Sprinkled or dipped?
No, this is not going to be about ice cream. Although ice cream sounds good right now after a nice sunny day, this is going to be about baptism. Specifically infant baptism, and even more specifically, the baptism of my infant on May 15.
When it comes to ceremonial acts performed on infants, Christianity essentially has two options: infant baptism, and infant dedication. Broadly speaking, infant baptism is practiced by Christians who hold to a tradition of orthodoxy, such as the Roman Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Anglican church. Evangelical and Protestant churches tend to favor baptism for adult believers, and therefore eschew infant baptism. A few Protestant denominations practice both infant baptism and infant dedication according to the wishes of the child's parents. My current denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church, is one of these.
And although I was raised in a denomination that practices both baptism and dedication for infants, the reality in my local church was that infants were rarely, if ever baptized. My wife was raised in a similar tradition. So our decision to have our son baptized is a departure from what we were taught, and it has inspired some good, honest questions from both sides of the family. This post is primarily for them. (I do hope that others will find it interesting and somehow helpful in understanding the Christian faith.)
While in college and seminary, I developed a stronger "sacramental" theology than I ever had growing up. This means that I regard acts such as Holy Communion and baptism as "means of grace." In other words, I believe God uses them to impart his grace to people who partake willingly and with expectation. In the case of Communion, it's not only that it reminds us of Jesus' sacrifice, as some traditions teach—though it certainly does do that. It's also that it is the source of spiritual strength. John Wesley said in his sermon The Duty of Constant Communion, "As our bodies are strengthened by bread and wine, so are our souls by these tokens of the body and blood of Christ. This is the food of our souls."
If Communion is a strengthening sacrament, baptism is a "welcoming" sacrament. Adults who are converted to Christianity are baptized as an act of entrance and welcoming into the community of faith and as a recognition of their conversion event. For children of believers, however, there (hopefully) will not be a drastic conversion moment. Hopefully, my son Abel will grow up always knowing and trusting Jesus, more with each passing year. Assuming this is the case, it is unlikely he will have a "crisis" conversion to Christianity that would result in adult baptism.
So we will have him baptized as an infant as an act of welcoming into the community of faith. He does not have the faith of belief, yet, but his parents do, and his church friends do. At some point, it will be up to him to accept or reject the faith into which he was baptized. Since that time has not yet come, we will baptize him and pray for him. These acts are a recognition that God's grace is present in his life even before he is "converted." (Theologians call this "prevenient grace.")
In addition to these spiritual and theological reasons, there are two historical reasons that suggest infant baptism is an appropriate act.
First, the historic Christian church has baptized infants for its entire existence. Even in the New Testament, there are stories of entire households being baptized. (See Acts 16 for one example.) When there is a question of doctrine, I tend to side with the historic Christian tradition. I simply believe that those closer to the time of Jesus and the apostles were more likely to "get it right" than someone sitting down with the Bible two thousand years later.
And the other reason, perhaps a bit obscure, is that the early Christians saw baptism as the new circumcision. As Jews who were struggling with Gentile converts to their young sect, the early Christians knew that circumcision was the sign of the "old" covenant, that is, the one God made with Abraham. Baptism was the sign of the "new" covenant that God makes with all people through his son Jesus. For Jews, the entrance ritual and sign of the covenant is circumcision, for males only. For Christians, the entrance ritual and sign of the covenant is baptism—for both males and females, for in Christ, gender and other barriers come crashing down. (See Galatians 3:28.)
So there you have it. A brief overview of our reasoning for having our son baptized. Feel free to ask questions or make comments in this post. And if you're close to Rochester on May 15, stop in at Artisan Church and join us.
Updated to include a photo:
When it comes to ceremonial acts performed on infants, Christianity essentially has two options: infant baptism, and infant dedication. Broadly speaking, infant baptism is practiced by Christians who hold to a tradition of orthodoxy, such as the Roman Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Anglican church. Evangelical and Protestant churches tend to favor baptism for adult believers, and therefore eschew infant baptism. A few Protestant denominations practice both infant baptism and infant dedication according to the wishes of the child's parents. My current denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church, is one of these.
And although I was raised in a denomination that practices both baptism and dedication for infants, the reality in my local church was that infants were rarely, if ever baptized. My wife was raised in a similar tradition. So our decision to have our son baptized is a departure from what we were taught, and it has inspired some good, honest questions from both sides of the family. This post is primarily for them. (I do hope that others will find it interesting and somehow helpful in understanding the Christian faith.)
While in college and seminary, I developed a stronger "sacramental" theology than I ever had growing up. This means that I regard acts such as Holy Communion and baptism as "means of grace." In other words, I believe God uses them to impart his grace to people who partake willingly and with expectation. In the case of Communion, it's not only that it reminds us of Jesus' sacrifice, as some traditions teach—though it certainly does do that. It's also that it is the source of spiritual strength. John Wesley said in his sermon The Duty of Constant Communion, "As our bodies are strengthened by bread and wine, so are our souls by these tokens of the body and blood of Christ. This is the food of our souls."
If Communion is a strengthening sacrament, baptism is a "welcoming" sacrament. Adults who are converted to Christianity are baptized as an act of entrance and welcoming into the community of faith and as a recognition of their conversion event. For children of believers, however, there (hopefully) will not be a drastic conversion moment. Hopefully, my son Abel will grow up always knowing and trusting Jesus, more with each passing year. Assuming this is the case, it is unlikely he will have a "crisis" conversion to Christianity that would result in adult baptism.
So we will have him baptized as an infant as an act of welcoming into the community of faith. He does not have the faith of belief, yet, but his parents do, and his church friends do. At some point, it will be up to him to accept or reject the faith into which he was baptized. Since that time has not yet come, we will baptize him and pray for him. These acts are a recognition that God's grace is present in his life even before he is "converted." (Theologians call this "prevenient grace.")
In addition to these spiritual and theological reasons, there are two historical reasons that suggest infant baptism is an appropriate act.
First, the historic Christian church has baptized infants for its entire existence. Even in the New Testament, there are stories of entire households being baptized. (See Acts 16 for one example.) When there is a question of doctrine, I tend to side with the historic Christian tradition. I simply believe that those closer to the time of Jesus and the apostles were more likely to "get it right" than someone sitting down with the Bible two thousand years later.
And the other reason, perhaps a bit obscure, is that the early Christians saw baptism as the new circumcision. As Jews who were struggling with Gentile converts to their young sect, the early Christians knew that circumcision was the sign of the "old" covenant, that is, the one God made with Abraham. Baptism was the sign of the "new" covenant that God makes with all people through his son Jesus. For Jews, the entrance ritual and sign of the covenant is circumcision, for males only. For Christians, the entrance ritual and sign of the covenant is baptism—for both males and females, for in Christ, gender and other barriers come crashing down. (See Galatians 3:28.)
So there you have it. A brief overview of our reasoning for having our son baptized. Feel free to ask questions or make comments in this post. And if you're close to Rochester on May 15, stop in at Artisan Church and join us.
Updated to include a photo:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
