I am not a Ludite (someone who fears changing technology). I use cell phones and computers like it was second nature. I had no trouble replacing all my vinyl records with CDs because of the superior sound quality. I use e-mail and have a Facebook page. Look, I even know how to blog.
But I just don't get the Twitter phenomenon. Updates by my "favorite" people on their activities by the day or hour or minute? I don't really need to know and I doubt that anyone wants to know this stuff about me.
I figure that writing a blog is egotistical enough. But at least here, I am expressing thoughts that maybe we can discuss. But to know that I am going to the gym now...what's the purpose?
I am really trying to not be a crank here. I just don't get it. Perhaps I'm just not social enough. Or maybe this is a fad that will soon die. Whatever, I can't see myself tweeting anytime soon.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Gibson vs. Fender
The first quality electric guitar that I have ever owned is the one that I bought this year: a Gibson Les Paul Premium Plus. When buying this guitar, it was my intention to buy a lifetime guitar. I do not have GAS (Guitar Acquisition Syndrome). My Martin J-40 is the only acoustic I need. The same is true with my Gibson SG bass.
The classic quality production-run solid-body electric guitars are the Fender Stratocaster, Fender Telecaster, Gibson Les Paul, and Gibson SG. There are a lot of different models and price points within each style, but in general the price for the Gibsons run 30%-80% higher than comparable Fenders. So why did I insist that I was going for a Gibson rather than a Fender?
In a word, tone. I have to admit that the Fenders are a bit easier to play and there is no more classic body style than that of the Stratocaster. However, I so prefer the tone of the Gibson humbuckers that for me there is no comparison.
I was asked once what the difference is between them. Although you can make a lot of tonal changes with amplifiers and effects pedals, the single-coil Fender pickups are generally cleaner but thinner sounding. The tone of the Gibson pickups are generally thicker but grittier.
The best example is to compare the sound of Eric Clapton's guitars from his days with Cream to that of his work with Derek and the Dominoes onward. Think of the crunchy sound of "Sunshine of Your Love" and the thinner sound of "Layla."
Recently, however, I found an even better example. Eric Clapton and B.B. King did an album together a couple of years ago. As noted, Clapton has been using Stratocasters for years and King has always played a Gibson ES-335 with humbuckers. The video below is really an audio clip of the end of the song "Three O'Clock Blues." EC's guitar is in the left channel and B.B. is in the right. They are playing notes in the same range so it makes a valid comparison.
Some people will prefer the tone of the Strat, but it is that humbucker tone that is my preference. Hence my purchase of a Gibson Les Paul. I would be interested to hear what you think.
The classic quality production-run solid-body electric guitars are the Fender Stratocaster, Fender Telecaster, Gibson Les Paul, and Gibson SG. There are a lot of different models and price points within each style, but in general the price for the Gibsons run 30%-80% higher than comparable Fenders. So why did I insist that I was going for a Gibson rather than a Fender?
In a word, tone. I have to admit that the Fenders are a bit easier to play and there is no more classic body style than that of the Stratocaster. However, I so prefer the tone of the Gibson humbuckers that for me there is no comparison.
I was asked once what the difference is between them. Although you can make a lot of tonal changes with amplifiers and effects pedals, the single-coil Fender pickups are generally cleaner but thinner sounding. The tone of the Gibson pickups are generally thicker but grittier.
The best example is to compare the sound of Eric Clapton's guitars from his days with Cream to that of his work with Derek and the Dominoes onward. Think of the crunchy sound of "Sunshine of Your Love" and the thinner sound of "Layla."
Recently, however, I found an even better example. Eric Clapton and B.B. King did an album together a couple of years ago. As noted, Clapton has been using Stratocasters for years and King has always played a Gibson ES-335 with humbuckers. The video below is really an audio clip of the end of the song "Three O'Clock Blues." EC's guitar is in the left channel and B.B. is in the right. They are playing notes in the same range so it makes a valid comparison.
Some people will prefer the tone of the Strat, but it is that humbucker tone that is my preference. Hence my purchase of a Gibson Les Paul. I would be interested to hear what you think.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Take Your Time
Yesterday we celebrated communion in church. One of our elders directed the service and it was quite meaningful. He delivered a short, but stirring message. Rather than the hurried service that occurs in many churches, he took an appropriate amount of time for reflection.
The Assemblies of God is part of the Anabaptist tradition which treats the Lord's Supper as only a memorial. Though I understand this position (but wonder if other options are worth discussing--another day), what bothers me is we often treat it as if it is a "mere" memorial. Too often it is squeezed into the service somewhere and rushed through. In some churches, there is an elaborate system of distribution, but no time for focussing on meaning.
Communion should be unhurried. We need enough time to remember what we are supposed to be remembering. The fact of Jesus' death on the cross for our sins should inspire awe. That we partake of his sacrifice through eating the bread and drinking the cup should move us.
I appreciate that our church does not typically hurry through communion. I hope yours doesn't either.
The Assemblies of God is part of the Anabaptist tradition which treats the Lord's Supper as only a memorial. Though I understand this position (but wonder if other options are worth discussing--another day), what bothers me is we often treat it as if it is a "mere" memorial. Too often it is squeezed into the service somewhere and rushed through. In some churches, there is an elaborate system of distribution, but no time for focussing on meaning.
Communion should be unhurried. We need enough time to remember what we are supposed to be remembering. The fact of Jesus' death on the cross for our sins should inspire awe. That we partake of his sacrifice through eating the bread and drinking the cup should move us.
I appreciate that our church does not typically hurry through communion. I hope yours doesn't either.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Two Weeks
Did you ever see the movie, The Money Pit, with Tom Hanks and Shelly Long? It was so-so with a few really funny scenes. They had one running gag that I will always remember. No matter how far away the house was from completion, when they asked the contractor how long it would be, the answer was always "two weeks."
That's where I am with my dissertation. When I am asked how long until I finish, I seem to always say, "Just another couple of weeks." Then a couple of weeks pass, and I am still not done.
Unlike the contractor in the movie, I really believe that it will only be a couple of weeks. So what happens? Lots of things. Something happens at home to make me miss a half-a-day of work. My adviser apparently leaves town for two weeks (I assume since I can't find him and he doesn't answer his e-mail). I distract myself with other things (really easy for me to do). Another reader does not get his comments to me when he says he would.
To be a summer graduate, everything needs to be done by the first week of August. It is already the first week of June. Two months can go by quickly. I hope it doesn't get away from me.
That's where I am with my dissertation. When I am asked how long until I finish, I seem to always say, "Just another couple of weeks." Then a couple of weeks pass, and I am still not done.
Unlike the contractor in the movie, I really believe that it will only be a couple of weeks. So what happens? Lots of things. Something happens at home to make me miss a half-a-day of work. My adviser apparently leaves town for two weeks (I assume since I can't find him and he doesn't answer his e-mail). I distract myself with other things (really easy for me to do). Another reader does not get his comments to me when he says he would.
To be a summer graduate, everything needs to be done by the first week of August. It is already the first week of June. Two months can go by quickly. I hope it doesn't get away from me.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Those Who Can Teach, Teach
You know the old expression, "Those who can't do, teach"? It is a not-subtle slam against all teachers, but especially those at the college level and beyond. As this is what I went back to school to do, it offends me.
Let's narrow down the discussion to Bible college/seminary professors and the church. When a pastor has a question about the Bible or theology, how often does he/she call or e-mail one of our professors? Rarely. When the denomination wants to study an issue, what is the percentage of our scholars appointed to the committee. Small, if any.
Do we have the attitude of one pastor-friend who said to me years ago, "Bible college professors are failed pastors"? Or are pastors misled into thinking that with a few books, they have all they need to solve every exegetical or theological problem? These are two different issues. Let's take them one at a time.
First, I do not know the ministry experience of all of our Bible school professors. I know some who have had very good ministry experience and others who had light experience. My own experience is somewhat mixed, more than 15 years of success and failure. I even started a church (though it eventually closed).
To adopt the failed-minister attitude is unbiblical. It mocks Paul's words: But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose....Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. (1 Cor 12:18, 27-28)
The church needs scholars and teachers. They need to be appreciated for what they can offer. They are not failed pastors, but hopefully they are successful teachers.
Second, Paul's admonition about the members of the Body of Christ should also cause us to value our scholars and professors. Most pastors are capable of constructing weekly sermons and Bible studies, and of examining simple theological issues without having to consult some expert. However, there are occassional questions that demand much deeper study and insight than the average pastor or denominational official can bring to bear. Why not talk to the people who have done this deeper study? For that matter, why not include them any time theological questions might be raised?
I hope that I will be able to convey to my students that their professors--regardless of their practical experience--are valuable in the Body of Christ and have contributions to make. Hopefully they will remember and take advantage of this resource.
Let the teachers teach, and let them do so after the student has left school.
Let's narrow down the discussion to Bible college/seminary professors and the church. When a pastor has a question about the Bible or theology, how often does he/she call or e-mail one of our professors? Rarely. When the denomination wants to study an issue, what is the percentage of our scholars appointed to the committee. Small, if any.
Do we have the attitude of one pastor-friend who said to me years ago, "Bible college professors are failed pastors"? Or are pastors misled into thinking that with a few books, they have all they need to solve every exegetical or theological problem? These are two different issues. Let's take them one at a time.
First, I do not know the ministry experience of all of our Bible school professors. I know some who have had very good ministry experience and others who had light experience. My own experience is somewhat mixed, more than 15 years of success and failure. I even started a church (though it eventually closed).
To adopt the failed-minister attitude is unbiblical. It mocks Paul's words: But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose....Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. (1 Cor 12:18, 27-28)
The church needs scholars and teachers. They need to be appreciated for what they can offer. They are not failed pastors, but hopefully they are successful teachers.
Second, Paul's admonition about the members of the Body of Christ should also cause us to value our scholars and professors. Most pastors are capable of constructing weekly sermons and Bible studies, and of examining simple theological issues without having to consult some expert. However, there are occassional questions that demand much deeper study and insight than the average pastor or denominational official can bring to bear. Why not talk to the people who have done this deeper study? For that matter, why not include them any time theological questions might be raised?
I hope that I will be able to convey to my students that their professors--regardless of their practical experience--are valuable in the Body of Christ and have contributions to make. Hopefully they will remember and take advantage of this resource.
Let the teachers teach, and let them do so after the student has left school.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
One Last Shot of Glory
I have always been fascinated by the ability of fading baseball stars to reach back and find one more great performance before the end. I don't really understand it, but it happens.
Bill Simmons wrote in his ESPN column today about the sudden and tragic decline of Boston's David Ortiz. Many people have speculated that he may have been a steroid user as his rapid rise in power during the steroid era was matched by his rapid fall after testing went into place.
Simmons (a rose-colored-glasses Boston homer if there ever was one) has decided that steroids is not the answer in this story. Rather, he thinks that Big Papi is actually older than the 33 that he is reported to be. Players from the Dominican Republic have a notorious history of making themselves younger to be more appealing to Major League clubs. In Simmons opinion, if Ortiz is really 37, then this decline is very predictable for a large-bodied slugger. (I am skeptical and think that steroids could still be the answer here, but there is no evidence yet.)
As a fan, Simmons was encouraged by the slugger's first home run of the year. Unfortunately, it has not been followed by any other signs that he has regained his bat speed. It was possibly one of those last-gasp heroics of the declining star.
From 1974-1978 Doug Rau was a mainstay of the Dodgers rotation going 73-49 with a 3.20 ERA over those five seasons. Solid. Then he started the 1979 season 0-4 through 6 starts with an ERA of 8.10. He looked like maybe he was hurt. Then he inexplicably gutted out a one-hitter over a very good Montreal team that won 95 games that year.
The sports section of the LA Times featured the story with a huge headline that ran all way across the top of the page. LA fans rejoiced. Rau was back. Not long after that his arm fell off and he only started 7 more games in his career.
Fernando Valenzuela was the biggest thing to hit the Dodgers when he earned both Rookie of the Year and the Cy Young award in 1981. All the pitches he threw eventually took a toll and he was injured through most of LA's 1988 World Series season. In 1989 he was only 10-13 and started the 1990 season 5-6 and clearly struggling (he finished the season 13-13). But on June 29, he took the ball and no-hit the Cardinals. I will always remember Vin Scully's game-ending call, "If you have a sombrero, throw it up in the air. Fernando has thrown a no-hitter."
Valenzuela was cut the following spring. He hung around baseball for several more years, but was never again a top pitcher.
If he is indeed finished, Big Papi may have a two-homer six-RBI game left in him. If so, don't be fooled, however. It sometimes happens before the end.
Bill Simmons wrote in his ESPN column today about the sudden and tragic decline of Boston's David Ortiz. Many people have speculated that he may have been a steroid user as his rapid rise in power during the steroid era was matched by his rapid fall after testing went into place.
Simmons (a rose-colored-glasses Boston homer if there ever was one) has decided that steroids is not the answer in this story. Rather, he thinks that Big Papi is actually older than the 33 that he is reported to be. Players from the Dominican Republic have a notorious history of making themselves younger to be more appealing to Major League clubs. In Simmons opinion, if Ortiz is really 37, then this decline is very predictable for a large-bodied slugger. (I am skeptical and think that steroids could still be the answer here, but there is no evidence yet.)
As a fan, Simmons was encouraged by the slugger's first home run of the year. Unfortunately, it has not been followed by any other signs that he has regained his bat speed. It was possibly one of those last-gasp heroics of the declining star.
From 1974-1978 Doug Rau was a mainstay of the Dodgers rotation going 73-49 with a 3.20 ERA over those five seasons. Solid. Then he started the 1979 season 0-4 through 6 starts with an ERA of 8.10. He looked like maybe he was hurt. Then he inexplicably gutted out a one-hitter over a very good Montreal team that won 95 games that year.
The sports section of the LA Times featured the story with a huge headline that ran all way across the top of the page. LA fans rejoiced. Rau was back. Not long after that his arm fell off and he only started 7 more games in his career.
Fernando Valenzuela was the biggest thing to hit the Dodgers when he earned both Rookie of the Year and the Cy Young award in 1981. All the pitches he threw eventually took a toll and he was injured through most of LA's 1988 World Series season. In 1989 he was only 10-13 and started the 1990 season 5-6 and clearly struggling (he finished the season 13-13). But on June 29, he took the ball and no-hit the Cardinals. I will always remember Vin Scully's game-ending call, "If you have a sombrero, throw it up in the air. Fernando has thrown a no-hitter."
Valenzuela was cut the following spring. He hung around baseball for several more years, but was never again a top pitcher.
If he is indeed finished, Big Papi may have a two-homer six-RBI game left in him. If so, don't be fooled, however. It sometimes happens before the end.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Where Does It Go?
Why is it that literary and musical artists seem to run out of steam at some point? A couple of weeks ago I listened to the new Lyle Lovett album. It's terrible. Maybe two decent songs and the rest is just blah.
It's not like he's putting out product too fast either. From 1986 to 1996, he released six albums of pretty good quality. The last of these six, "The Road to Ensanada," is probably my favorite. Since then he has released two albums of new original material: "My Baby Don't Tolerate" (2003) and the latest, "It's Not Big, It's Large" (2007). The former is a pretty good album, the latter is very disapointing.
So what happened? Did he forget how to write? Is he trying to do new things that just aren't working? Has comfort and success dulled the creativity gene? Or is it possible that there is only so much creativity in a person that runs out after so many songs or so much time? After all, it happens with athletes. The arm or legs can tolerate only so much mileage.
I'm not picking on Lyle; it happens with everyone. The Rolling Stones are still touring to big crowds, but face it, nobody goes to the show to hear the material from their newest stinky album; they're wanting to hear "Jumping Jack Flash" one more time. Jackson Browne is easily my favorite singer-songwriter ever, but his latest album is even worse than Lyle Lovett's; there is not a single song on it that I enjoyed.
Being able to continue to perform is not the same as being able to create new music. The former is one thing--when you can't sing or play anymore, the people stop coming. But when you can't create anymore, do you lose your relevance? I don't have a lot of answers, but I have a lot of questions.
It's not like he's putting out product too fast either. From 1986 to 1996, he released six albums of pretty good quality. The last of these six, "The Road to Ensanada," is probably my favorite. Since then he has released two albums of new original material: "My Baby Don't Tolerate" (2003) and the latest, "It's Not Big, It's Large" (2007). The former is a pretty good album, the latter is very disapointing.
So what happened? Did he forget how to write? Is he trying to do new things that just aren't working? Has comfort and success dulled the creativity gene? Or is it possible that there is only so much creativity in a person that runs out after so many songs or so much time? After all, it happens with athletes. The arm or legs can tolerate only so much mileage.
I'm not picking on Lyle; it happens with everyone. The Rolling Stones are still touring to big crowds, but face it, nobody goes to the show to hear the material from their newest stinky album; they're wanting to hear "Jumping Jack Flash" one more time. Jackson Browne is easily my favorite singer-songwriter ever, but his latest album is even worse than Lyle Lovett's; there is not a single song on it that I enjoyed.
Being able to continue to perform is not the same as being able to create new music. The former is one thing--when you can't sing or play anymore, the people stop coming. But when you can't create anymore, do you lose your relevance? I don't have a lot of answers, but I have a lot of questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
