Cal Got Reamed

OK. I will try not to rant.

But here's the thing. If one actually cared about an equitable system for college postseason football, you could do one of two things. You could create a real playoff, with maybe 8 or 10 teams, and hold a real-deal playoff. Start it around the third week in December and you're done before classes start in January. I could quickly sketch out an equitable solution for how you pick those teams, but suffice to say that it's not hard. (Hint: start with conference champs, so that the regular season really means something.) Sure, the #11 team would complain... but it wouldn't be easy to see that team as a legit #1 contender.

Or. Go back to the original system. This is probably the better way to go. Traditional matchups. Bowl games that mean something. Conference championships that mean something. Sure, I would love to see Cal - Michigan in the Rose Bowl, but honestly it SHOULD be USC - Michgan. I'm OK with getting rid of tradition when it's time for it to go, but who wants to argue that the current setup is better? Bull. I'm tired of the whining about how we don't get a national title game this way. So what? Who loses? ESPN? ABC? CBS? Well, screw them. They'll still have games to televise. And if anyone wants to pipe up with "the fans deserve it," first you better explain to me why the team, the conference, the NCAA owe you anything. Short answer: they don't.

The current system does nothing but screw up. There's no justice, no history, and no interest. Who really wants to see Michgan - Texas? What is that? Pitt vs. Utah? The heck? And of course, we really won't have a solid national champion ANYWAY if Auburn wins out.

Just pointless. We have a true national champion. At the moment, it's the New England Patriots. College football is something different. Yes, even with the money that flows through its coffers, it's still different. Making it the same turns it into minor league football. Quick... who won the Triple-A World Series? Yeah, exactly.

Guess I ranted. What do you expect? Cut me... do I not bleed blue and gold?

Cake concert review

As long as I'm thinking about it, I should review the Cake show I saw in October. The show was on 17 October at the Vogue. The Vogue is a converted theater with an open floorplan and a balcony. It's a good live venue (and not a Clear Channel place) but unfortunately they do more dance club stuff than live music. But anyway.

I will have to write these interviews faster, because I can't remember anything about the opening act. All I can recall is that the bass was mixed too heavy, and the band wasn't particularly good or bad.

Cake put on a fine show. I would imagine that people either love or hate their live experience. As with The Weakerthans, there's not a lot of improvisation or variation from the album. On the other hand, John McCrea is all about interacting with the audience. Sometimes obsessively so. I find it to be fun and different; others might disagree.

They played a wide mix of their stuff, playing less of the new disc than I expected. But there's a lot of good songs there and it's good to hear the olders stuff as well. They opened with "It's Coming Down", McCrea mentioning that they opened with it their last time in Indy (a rainy night). Nothing hugely surprising but quite a bit of fun.

Bottom line: a very good show, as usual, and easily a band I would recommend seeing live. At least once.

Concert Review: The Weakerthans, The High Strung, Despistado

The Weakerthans have been by far my favorite band for the past year or so. So even though I'm not a big show-goer, I was more than happy to drive 2 hours south to Louisville to see them live. (Well, it was on a Saturday, which helped.)

The show was on 13 November at Jillians in Louisville, with two bands opening -- Despistado and The High Strung. I was familiar with neither. DL and I drove down from Indy, getting there in time to have dinner before the show. If you don't know Jillians, suffice to say that it's a chain, probably based around some phrase like "total entertainment experience" or some such. I'd rather see a show at a real venue, but the room was OK but not great. The show was all-ages, and the median age was probably about 17. Surprisingly this made for a passive (though engaged) crowd. The kids were enjoying the music but reacted like they were watching TV.

So Despistado was first up. They had just started when we came downstairs. They didn't make much of an impression. They looked like suburban kids who got really nice guitars for Christmas. Definitely good for a high-school band but they don't yet have the experience (either musically or in life) to do interesting stuff.

Second up was The High Strung. They were a revelation and put on a fantastic set. They do straight power-pop rock. My thought at the time was that their sound is a bit like The Who about 1966, except perhaps a bit more light-hearted. They came out strong and kept belting out songs with terrific energy -- and yet they were amazingly tight, too. In particular the drummer (Derek Berk) was one of the best rock drummers I've seen live. Just absolutely crazy energy, and a rock-solid beat. Charismatic, too.

They were however frustrated by the crowd, which was into the music but still quite passive. It was weird. The music was energetic, and good, and the crowd obviously appreciated it... but reacted like it was a tennis match. Best guess is that the kids there were not used to seeing a band onstage unless they already knew the music. Anyway it was disappointing to see how little reward the band got for such a good show, and by the halfway point they were trying to cajole the crowd into responding. No dice, but they kept up the energy anyway. I've since bought one of their CDs (These Are Good Times) and it's definitely worth a listen if you can find it.

The Weakerthans came out pretty quickly afterwards. Their stuff is difficult to describe. Maybe I'd call it folk-influenced punk (or vice versa), fairly simple on the surface, but with more musical complexity than is first apparent, and some of the best and most evocative lyrics I've heard in a very long time. They tend towards quiet songs with mid-tempo contemplative sounds, mixed with up-tempo power pop type anthems.

The set list was drawn equally from all three of their discs. They focused on the more up-tempo and catchy stuff, but also performed a number of the quiet melancholy contemplative songs. For some bands this would be surprising, but their quiet stuff is so good and distinctive that it would be a real shame if it wasn't included in the live show. There was one or maybe two new songs; I know they did "Utility", which isn't on any discs but shows up in the interview with CBC Radio 3. (Click on the "John Sampson" link.)

Their stage show produces something very close to what they do in the studio. They're not a band of soloists and improvisation, so the live stuff tracks closely to the CDs. With some bands this could make for a disappointing live show, but there's enough complexity and depth that it works quite well. The lead singer, John Sampson, has a shy but compelling stage presence. He's not a bantering, joking frontman; he obviously cares about what he's written. This gives his performance a combination of intensity and vulnerability that's well matched to the songs he writes.

It's interesting to compare the show with the Cake show I saw earlier in the month. The two bands have some interesting similarities: both are driving by "auteur" visions of their lead singers; both have a live show that closely tracks their recorded work; both are driven first by the lyrics and avoid improvisation. Cake is more focused on cultural commentary, while The Weakerthans are more about relationships and (obliquely) politics. They're both well worth seeing live.

So overall, it was a fun night and a great quick trip. I'd love to see them again -- though I'd take a new album if forced to the choice.