Showing posts with label Reds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reds. Show all posts

Monday, February 9, 2009

The Death of Jazz... ...and Baseball, Too?

Over the weekend (if you consider that the weekend starts on Friday; long gone are those college days when youthful exuberance demanded the weekend start on Thursday!), I finished reading Joe Posnanski's excellent book, The Soul of Baseball: A Road Trip Through Buck O'Neil's America. Did I mention it is an excellent read? O'Neil had such a zest for living, I'm now sad I never got to meet the man before he passed away. Posnanski was lucky enough to spend a year traveling with O'Neil, and there are wonderful life lessons* learned every step along the way.


* My favorite life lesson? When O'Neil schooled Posnanski with, "Son, in this life, you don't ever walk by a red dress."

One thing stuck with me after reading the book, however. O'Neil often compared baseball to jazz. He also compared living to jazz, but he insisted that the rhythms of baseball most closely matched those of jazz. I do think he was right about that.

What, then, do we make of the premise that jazz is dying, or perhaps that it died with John Coltrane in the late '60s? My wife was watching the Grammys last night, and she mentioned the same thing, that jazz is dead. Perhaps someone on the show said as much, I don't know.* The only part I watched last night was when Neil Diamond took the stage to sing "Sweet Caroline." How he could pull that off without any hint of irony, I have no idea. The only worthwhile part of the show immediately followed his performance, when they paid tribute to those musicians, producers, and even one music photographer who passed away last year, followed by an excellent rendition of "Who Do You Love?" as a tribute to Bo Diddley.

* I can't stand the incredible proliferation of awards shows -- too much self-congratulatory back slapping can't be good for any industry, and it's not like the folks in Hollywood or the music industry really need any more attention. So I boycott all of the award shows, even the Oscars, on general principle.

I thought I would explore the thought that jazz died with Coltrane a bit more, since people still practice and listen to jazz in great numbers. I have friends who are dedicated to the genre, and who still travel great lengths to attend the annual New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival. Of course, as soon as I opened their website, I saw a picture announcing the scheduled performance of Jon Bovi. Maybe jazz really is dead, after all.

I also found this very recent article from a musical magazine called The Walrus (with an obvious reference to The Beatles, no? Actually, probably not.), in which the author talks about jazz and how it might slip into the same category as classical music: no composer creates anything fresh and new; performers just put their own interpretation on the classic pieces of the genre. Alexander Gelfand actually makes a convincing argument that many musical genres hit similar walls during the '60s, when new musicians revolted against standard elements of music such as meter, harmony, and tonality in attempts to push the boundaries of music. Nothing new there. People in all walks of life were revolting against the Establishment during that time frame.

Personally, I am ambivalent towards modern jazz for all the same reasons why people describe jazz as dead today. As much as I love swing, big band, bebop, and other earlier forms of jazz, I detest the random, meandering improvisational form that took hold on jazz in the '60s. Too many of the sounds are discordant, and the songs don't seem to go anywhere. Everything is too loose, if you will. How can anyone tell if a truly improvisational effort that goes on for 25 minutes is any good or not?

Very good rock-n-roll, on the other hand, is invariably tight musically. There should be no random notes, and a three-and-a-half minute performance does not allow for any wasted effort.* Think about the signature songs of Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and even The Ramones. All of their songs were tight and to the point. I do remember being introduced to a small college band's sound by a fellow traveler on an airplane ride back in 1993. I remember thinking, "Wow. This sound is tight!" That was The Dave Matthews Band, just getting ready to release their first commercially successful album, "Under the Table and Dreaming."

* Obviously, lots of songs played on classic rock stations ("In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida," "Hotel California," and virtually anything by Chicago, Boston, the Moody Blues, Jethro Tull, etc.) do meander and take up unbearable amounts of time. I don't listen to those, either.

Back to the question: what to make of the death of jazz, if jazz is so closely tied to baseball? I would be remiss if I failed to include in this discussion the contributions of Ken Burns, who did two very extensive documentary series, one on Baseball, and one on Jazz. Clearly, O'Neil was not the only one who saw the connection between these two very American pastimes.

This discussion could get way out of hand at this point. The rise of rap and hip hop culture affected the style of play in the NBA, and there is a great intertwining of hip hop attitude in American culture at large (yes, even in the suburbs) these days. I don't want to get into all of that.

Drawing just one parallel to the jazz-baseball pairing, rock-n-roll could be associated with football. The rise of rock music in the early '50s and beyond coincided with the rise in popularity of the NFL and college football, and the NFL tends to get artists for the Super Bowl halftime show from the ranks of rock-n-roll (the early days of using Up With People notwithstanding), so I do think that case is strong. The rise of football also coincided with the rise of television, and there is a lot to be said about changing media and changing tastes, as well.

Baseball has its own issues that have led to declining interest among the American public. The litany goes on and on:
  • The players strike of '94 that forced the cancellation of the World Series just about killed the game.
  • Sadly, it was not until the Steroid Era home run bashers brought people back into the seats in '98 that baseball seemed strong again.
  • Now, we all wonder how to deal with the statistics from the Steroid Era.
  • Starting times for playoff games are too late for the next generation of fans to stay up and watch their heroes play the most meaningful games.
  • Many of the playoff games that used to air on one of the big four networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox) now are being shown only on cable stations like TNT or TBS.
  • Kids don't get out and play sandlot games with their friends any more, depriving kids of the pure joy of playing outside the regimented structure of organized baseball leagues.
  • A major drawback to organized youth baseball is the constant pressure to win imposed upon the kids by their coaches and parents; it often leads to burnout.
  • Ticket, parking, and concession prices for a family of four hover close to $200 at most MLB ballparks, making the possibility of regularly taking a family to see a game nigh impossible.
  • Actually going to the ballpark is still the best way of seeing the game and taking in all the rhythms, the sounds, and the music of baseball, as O'Neil described it.
  • Watching a game on TV still leaves a lot to be desired, since you cannot see the action on the entire field at the same time in any camera view, unlike football and basketball.
  • The MLB "salary cap," in which teams spending well above the cap limit pay a relatively small payroll tax, does not have the same effect as does the NFL cap, which significantly levels the playing field for free agents, thereby ensuring competitive balance.
There are many, many reasons why Americans do not watch or play baseball in the same numbers as we once did. The rise of football, basketball, and even "extreme sports" have all crowded the sports landscape. The same splintering of TV viewership that accompanied the rise of cable TV (where there is a niche for any viewing pleasure, meaning we never will have 109 million or so people tune in to a single show ever again) has had an impact on how we play and watch sports, as well.

I would also argue that people's tastes have changed since baseball's heyday in the '30s-'50s. People don't really listen to baseball games on the radio any more; who has the time for that? Forget that listening to baseball on the radio is the perfect medium if you cannot make it to the ballpark in person. Even if you can go to the ballpark, you'll still see fans listening to radio broadcasts while watching the game. It's a powerful connection that exists between radio and baseball.

I grew up listening to Cincinnati Reds games on WLW 700 AM with Joe Nuxhall and Marty Brennaman, primarily because the pizza delivery cars we drove only had AM radios in them. There was nothing better than listening to the games while driving to and from the next delivery location on a hot summer night. A very big reason why I've wanted a satellite radio receiver for the longest time was because I would be able to listen to Reds games on the radio once again, no matter where in the U.S. I lived.

What I'm really trying to say here is that the rise and fall of jazz and baseball fandom does seem to be linked. There are perhaps no more American modes of expression and entertainment than baseball and jazz. But the reasons for the overall decline in popularity for those two pastimes are complex and have to be couched in terms of shifting cultural patterns, as well. It's a fascinating topic, and I thank Posnanski and O'Neil for making me think of it.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Big Nate Does the Right Thing

Like I said in my brief bio on the right side of this blog, I like many different things. I probably won't ever increase my readership by consistently delivering news and notes on a single topic, but that's OK with me. This is my platform, and I'm going to use it as I see fit.

Last week, Lincoln Peirce, the author and creator of one of the daily cartoons that I follow, Big Nate, set up its protagonist to be either the goat or the hero in a big soccer match. The storyline extended beyond these four strips, but these were the ones that captured the relevant action from the soccer match:




The third strip in this series was the Friday strip, which meant going online on Saturday with the express purpose of finding out whether or not Nate made the save. (I read my daily comics on Yahoo!, by the way. Who needs to subscribe to a daily newspaper that just clutters up the house and forces you to recycle it anymore? Ah, but that's a post for another time.)

At any rate, you can see that Nate made the save, thereby winning the game for his team and his school against a soccer powerhouse that was trying to keep its four-year winning streak intact.

Good on him!











I was especially happy to see that Peirce decided his protagonist, who is otherwise an annoying, wisecracking kid, should be the hero this one time. It made me think of Charlie Brown for obvious reasons, and of how Charles Schulz always made his protagonist be the goat:




Alas, for all of Charlie Brown's otherwise exemplary qualities (celebrated in the play, "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown!"), he tended to not enjoy success on the ball field. Lucy always yanked the football away, and I think there was just the one celebrated instance where Schulz allowed Charlie Brown to get the game-winning hit in baseball.

That one game-winning hit meant that Charlie Brown was not ALWAYS the goat, but that was maybe one time in one hundred for the poor fellow. My family and I have always pulled for the underdog, and perhaps that was partly due to being from Ohio. In my own history, I do remember the incredible Big Red Machine teams of the Cincinnati Reds in the '70s, and of course seeing the Reds sweep the heavily favored Oakland A's in the 1990 World Series is one of my all-time favorite memories.

Sadly, the Browns and Bengals have been lovable losers for most of my years of fandom, perhaps reaching the AFC Championship game or even the Super Bowl (twice for the Bengals!), only to fall just short of true glory.

Regardless of how or why we tended to root for the underdogs, it was just something I natively understood while growing up. Perhaps that was due to Charlie Brown's example. We always wished he could kick that ball before Lucy could pull it away. In the case of Big Nate above, I was happy to see that Nate could enjoy being the hero for his team, and that he wouldn't be stuck in that Charlie Brown loop of goathood.

Of course, as an artist, Peirce probably came to the conclusion of whether or not Nate saved the goal by different means. If Nate missed the shot and had to be the goat, well, it's been done before. I'm finding out that expression has been co-opted into many different meanings these days, like anything else. But I always think of the episode of "Northern Exposure" where Chris, the artist, wanted to throw a cow with his trebuchet, and they stopped him from doing so because, well, it's been done.



Friday, October 31, 2008

Griffey Jr. Released by the White Sox

I saw this news item today, and it makes me sad. For one, Griffey Jr. will no longer be a quick car ride up to Chicago away for me to see him play again. I've been fortunate to see him play numerous times, in many different circumstances, including playing for the Mariners at the KC Royals, at the old Kingdome in Seattle, and for my beloved Reds at Enron Field [when it was still Enron Field!] in Houston. Junior was always a class act, and I saw him flip his $100 Oakley sunglasses to a kid sitting in the first row at Houston after the sun no longer made them necessary.

I do worry that Junior will struggle to catch on with another team next year, although that might be unfounded. I do like what the White Sox GM, Ken Williams, had to say about Junior in that article above. I have to believe that another American League team will pick up Junior as a free agent and make him the DH, if nothing else.

But he is coming off another season shortened by injuries, which have plagued him ever since leaving Seattle. He's just not as durable as he once was, and even Sports Illustrated commented on how Junior, not Barry Bonds, could be the all-time HR king these days if it weren't for all the games he's missed due to injuries. Here's hoping that Junior can continue his magnificent career with some team, and that he can continue hitting home runs the right way, sans performance-enhancing drugs.