blogovich

Penguins living on borrowed time

Funny how we are in the media. Detroit easily wins the first two games of the Stanley Cup final and, before Pittsburgh has had a chance to play a home game, we declare the Penguins dead.

Then the Penguins rebound to win Game 3 at home, though they were outplayed, and now all the hype is about how Pittsburgh might come back, flaws are being found in the Red Wings' game, etc. This speaks to, likely, too much down time and the easy recourse to pack journalism.

Suffice it to say, I still think Detroit will wrap this thing up in five. But because I'm lazy and want to keep this short (my son was giving it to me for a looong Led Zeppelin-related blog), I will merely refer you to Sports Illustrated.com's take, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Stanley Cup final: Game 1 (Penguins literally fall flat)

You knew things weren't going to go well for the Pittsburgh Penguins tonight when goalie Marc-Andre Fleury tripped charging onto the ice at the start of Game 1 of the Stanley Cup final.

Omen for the series? I think so. And tonight's 4-0 Detroit Red Wing victory supports the theory. Sure, it's just one game — and I'm usually the one saying you have to wait until each team has played a home game to even begin to gauge a series — but everything most every pundit was saying before the series began came true.

Detroit is too experienced, too airtight on defence, and has too many weapons up front to not win this series. It could be their last hurrah.

The Penguins' time — provided they are able to keep this team together — should come. Just not this year.

Five games, max.

Obama caves in. Sad on him, sad on the USA

Barack Obama is now wearing an American flag lapel pin, promoting the fact he is a Christian candidate of faith and plans to begin speaking about the military service of his grandparents. Read the story.

Sad that this real agent of change in the way politics works has to stoop to this — or have his handlers get him to stoop to this — in an effort to win the presidency. But in an America seemingly growing less mature as it ages, he obviously believes he has to in a pre-emptive effort to ward off the attacks about . . .

• his patriotism (does one have to wear a flag pin to prove one's patriotism? Or wear any symbol to prove one's belief in anything at all? The way the term patriotism is used and abused in the U.S. today it is indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel). Not to mention the fact it's become a cliche.
• his middle name Hussein. Yeah, so? Say he is a Muslim, though he denies it. Again, so what? Regardless, what a wonderful message that would send to the Muslim world that Americans can see beyond silly superficialities in thought and judgment.
• his lack of military service. Yeah, so? Maybe a bit less militarism might do the U.S. some good. Maybe a bit more of talking to America's enemies, as Obama proposes to derision from neo-cons, might do the world some good.

Such attacks have already in some measure been unleashed against Obama during the primaries and will be unleashed with all barrels blazing during the general election.

Would that Obama would continue to stand up for a truly different way of doing things. Alas, it seems not to be. How difficult it obviously is to change long-held political habits.

Sad for America. Sad for the world.

Maybe Hillary should run as an independent

Barack Obama looks to have the Democratic presidential nomination locked up. People are calling for Hillary Clinton to give it up before she tears apart the party.

Not sure she would; chances are she'll wind up with a Cabinet post should Obama win the presidency. They are not far apart on policy.

But if she wants to be president so badly, why not run as an independent? According to Time magazine, the Clintons are sitting on a $100 million fortune, most of it accumulated since Bill left office and took to the speech circuit. So they have the money, to the point where they've had to lend their own campaign money.

So why not cut out the middleman and go for it on her (their) own?

Of course, that would mean splitting the vote -- happens all the time in Canada -- and paving the way for John McCain to win the general election. Not the scenario you want to see if you want the Republicans out.

Back to an old standby: Led Zeppelin

So back we go to the well, the source of huge hits on Blogovich. Gratifying to hear it’s to do with humankind’s greatest invention: music.

In this case, Led Zeppelin. Nothing and nobody I write about draws more interest or comment.

Oh, and yes, I have yet to blog on Dread Zeppelin, the reggae-inspired Zep “cover” band, as promised. Here goes: Suffice it to say, buy an album, download a song, do whatever you can but hear them. Hilarious combo of Elvis (in Dread, he’s TortElvis) and Zep. Worth a listen. And, musically, actually not bad at all.

Anyway, back to Zep and we now respond to The Godfather, who recently posted this comment.

How can you honestly say that Zeppelin is a rip-off band? All of those songs that they supposedly "ripped off" from other artists aren't even popular songs. And this just in, Led Zeppelin never claimed that they wrote any of those songs anyway. So, I don't get what you're trying to say here.

Blogovich sez: Hi Godfather. (By the way, I started re-reading the Mario Puzo novel the other day and, while I once read books to the bitter end and thought this might be interesting 30 years later — but 40 pages in put this one aside...boring. I’m sure it’s good, but . . . I’ve moved on so why go back. Matured. Whatever, short attention span, seen the movies by now, what’s the point?).

ANYWAY. Zeppelin. OK, here is the one-time only, Blogovich (perhaps, I'm sure this will prompt more feedback, why do you folks care so much? glad, though) explanation of me and Zep.
• I like Zep. Grew up on ‘em. Let’s face it: irresistable tunes, never denied that. See previous posts on this ongoing topic.
• but they ripped off blues artists and got sued for it (reference Willie Dixon). And there are any number of musical analyses in print and on the web explaining how a song does not have to sound exactly the same to be plagiarism.
• listen to the song Taurus by the band Spirit (whom Zep toured with in the late 1960s and tell me they didn’t rip off the whole song for the intro to Stairway to Heaven, issued in 1971. Only someone deliberately avoiding the obvious would argue with that, once having listened).
• it doesn’t matter whether the original was popular or not. A rip-off is a rip-off. Credit your sources. All bands have influences. Most bands credit them without having to be sued over it.
• What great songs has Jimmy Page written since Zep? Has he run out of songs to rip?
• Zep “claimed” to have written the rip-off songs simply by ascribing the credits to “Page/Plant” rather than “Page/Plant/Dixon” or whoever. It took lawsuits to correct things; in some cases out of court settlements have resulted in “Page/Plant” still being used as credit when other names rightly should be included.
• It’s not just the blues artists Zep ripped off. Steve Marriott of Humble Pie, according to The Rough Guide to Led Zeppelin, “went to his grave believing that Zeppelin had taken the idea (to Whole Lotta Love) from a number he sung with the Small Faces called “You Need Loving” and which was also derived (and arguably ripped) from (Willie) Dixon’s song. Another, arguably, case of pot calling the kettle . . .

http://www.turnmeondeadman.net/Zep/WholeLottaLove.php

• Last point: Jeff Beck’s “Truth” appropriately-credited album is so obviously a template for Led Zep’s debut album, issued six months later, as to be laughable. As Beck acknowledged, his band could have been Zep but for interpersonal relationships and marketing.

All of this said, what truly ticks me about Zep is the band’s tendency to be affronted by those who point out such instances.

Again, to reference the Rough Guide, check out the article: Love and Theft: Zeppelin’s debt to the blues. We'll get you a link, stay tuned. Otherwise, buy the book.

It's a fine and objective analysis. As with all in the Rough Guide series (Beatles, Stones, Velvet Underground, Floyd, etc.) it pulls no punches.

And beyond that, we offer:

Prime exhibit: Robert Plant making great sport of David Coverdale during Whitesnake’s late 1980s (in America, they were big in Britain as a blues-rock Deep Purple-ish offshoot at the dawn of that decade) heyday, calling him David “Coverversion” for his arguable rips of Zep. Is ripping off a rip-off a rip-off? Good question. But hey, try listening to Sail Away by the Coverdale-fronted Deep Purple (1974) up against Trampled Underfoot by Zep (1975) and who is copying who? We've pointed this out previously.

Just an opinion. I guess it all depends on whether one enjoys things at face value, at a superficial level (which is OK), or chooses to delve deeper into the genesis of creativity.

If one chooses to delve deeper, that doesn’t preclude one’s enjoyment. But it does (or should) make one think.

As one commenter posted on this topic: Couldn’t agree more.

The long, sad decline of the NHL playoffs into summer

So I’m home after a long day at work, swigging a sample of Sauvignon Blanc (South African variety off the western Cape, which may or may not affect this post; hey boss: does this count as drinking on work time? I’ve already put in 12 hours today) and I figure, forget trying to educate myself with some serious reading; I need a brain break.
So yours truly, Blogovich, tunes in to the Stanley Cup playoff game.

And I find myself hoping for the Philadelphia Flyers to get back into this current series against the Pittsburgh Penguins, which the Flyers trail 2-0 (and 2-1 in the game) at this writing (8:44 p.m., Eastern time in North America).

Why is that? Well, to re-generate some interest. Because for yet another year, as the Stanley Cup playoffs progress, interest wanes — particularly in Canada with all the Canadian teams (but not players) long since having been eliminated. TV ratings on Cup playoff games from this past weekend reflect that. Auto racing crept two entries into the Canadian top 10 ratings where a few weeks ago 9 of 10 top-rated sports TV entries were NHL hockey.

By the way, we are currently running a poll here at www.therecord.com and those following the Cup playoffs are leading those following (one assumes Canada) in the world hockey championships 60-40 in percentage terms.

But really, this waning interest in the Stanley Cup playoffs has little to do with nationalism — one of the unholy trinity of politics (same basic animal) and religion which I so abhor.

As journalism colleague Mark Spector of CanWest newspapers opined on the eve of this year’s playoffs, only in the NHL does interest wane the closer one gets to the championship series.

That results from the fact, unfortunately, that hockey is an ice sport and it’s springing towards summer now.

But non-competitive series don’t help. The Flyers could yet come back tonight and in this series — only a fool declares a series over when it’s 2-0 but the trailing team has yet to play a home game.

But in the NHL West, the Detroit Red Wings — who will beat either eastern club handily in the Stanley Cup final (Pittsburgh, the 2000s version of the Edmonton Oilers, just aren’t quite there yet and will fall as the Oilers at first did to the veteran Islanders) — are up 3-0 on a plucky but tired and banged up Dallas Stars team.

So that one’s over.

And so will interest be over during the coming Cup final between Detroit and Pittsburgh. Oh, we’ll watch, all right, investing three hours of time each night though likely using the TV as one would a radio, only truly tuning in for the highlights of the goals as they happen.

It’s too bad, really. But what can one do with an ice sport that ends its championship season in the heat of June?

Ideas, anyone? Other than cutting the schedule back to 70 games and thus starting the playoffs sooner, I’m not sure I see a solution.

We can only hope. Contributions from those at FireBettman.com always welcome.

The ongoing tale of Balsillie's pursuit of an NHL team

Jim Balsillie of RIM fame, according to reports, now wants to buy the Buffalo Sabres. He might not even have to move them, since they're so close to Canada and draw lots of Canadian fans anyway.

But we keep hearing how the NHL has blackballed Balsillie in earlier attempts to buy the Pittsburgh Penguins and Nashville Predators, how it's an anti-Canadian thing, how NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has a personal dislike for Balsillie, etc.

Balsillie suggested otherwise at the Canadian Press dinner in Toronto on Thursday night, though he did acknowledge tension exists.

From a story moved by CP: About his unsuccessful attempts to acquire an NHL hockey team, Balsillie said he still likes the idea of there being another Canadian team.

But, he says, the move had to be "coherent" and done for the right reasons.

"There's nothing personal in any of this. The issue is whether we agree or not. It's an issue of what's right and what do we believe in and what does the market believe in and what Canadians believe," he said.

"The tension lies in fundamental visions of status quo versus evolution."

Whether personal animosity is a factor, only Bettman and Balsillie truly know. It does seem silly, on the surface, that the NHL would not want to have a billionaire in the lodge. He's got the money, he's a Canadian, a hockey fan and player who dabbles in recreational leagues and is obviously a sharp businessman, having helped build RIM into one of the world's most successful and innovative companies.

And keep in mind the NHL has historically never turned down owners with deep pockets, sometimes to the league's detriment at least in public perception. One example is one-time New York Islanders co-owner Sanjay Kumar pleading guilty to obstruction of justice and securities fraud charges in a $400 million accounting fraud scandal. On the ice and at the gate, the NHL has long tried to push hockey into virgin U.S. territories like Florida, Arizona and Georgia, with obvious results. Those teams are financial disasters.

Balsillie is not a Kumar. He's a reputable, solid businessman whose company employs thousands and is among Canada's most philanthropic.

So what's not to like?

Well, has the thought ever occurred to anyone that the league might not want Balsillie because, from the NHL's point of view chances are, he'd be an interfering-type owner and thus a headache the NHL doesn't need? He's known for being stubborn and uncompromising, for not giving in, for wanting to win. It is part of his success formula and it's obviously worked.

Still, it has had its costs. Look at the patent infringement case that NTP, a Virginia-based patent holding company, launched against RIM in 2000. RIM fought this in court, and eventually wound up having to pay a settlement of $612.5 million US after a long process that followed RIM's initial appeal of court-awarded damages of $33 million.

As for the history of Balsillie's pursuit of an NHL team: He said he wasn't interested in buying the Penguins. Then he tried to. Then he said he wasn't going to move the Predators. Then he began selling tickets in Hamilton, before the Preds sale was even approved.

From the NHL's perspective, this is someone who does not play well with others. It's not a natural fit for a commissioner, Gary Bettman, who despite cheap-shot characterizations of his physical stature and hockey knowledge, does have the support of the owners, not least as a result of his leadership in taking the players association to the woodshed during the 2004-05 lockout that cancelled an entire season.

With all this in mind, if you were running a sports league and were considering whether to let prospective new owner Balsillie in, might you not be a bit gun-shy? Particularly if you've dealt with him and have the Pittsburgh and Nashville experiences to go on as a demonstration of how Balsillie might be to deal with?

And even if Balsillie does wind up in the NHL (one wonders why he doesn't just buy the league itself), is it too much of a stretch to suggest that soon after he took over he'd be like any other hockey fan who fancies himself a coach or general manager, advising on trades and who to give ice time to?

There's far more going on here than simplistic analyses suggest.

Paul Maurice: Fired by Leafs, he'll be a TV talking head soon, well, probably right now

The guy has the gift of gab, which has conveniently, for superficial media types, has obscured his lousy coaching record.

His teams made the playoffs three times — yes, just 3 — in 11 seasons. Made the Stanley Cup final once and were obliterated by the Detroit Red Wings. Missed the playoffs the next year and he was gassed.

Maurice is a master of media manipulation.

So he'll go there for his next job — so he, a failed coach, can coach every NHL team.

Presser tomorrow in Toronto at 10:30 a.m. where Maurice will explain why he failed. Who cares?

By noon, I figure, he'll be a studio analyst on Canadian networks TSN, Sportsnet or The Score.

It's where he belongs. Not behind an NHL bench, based on his record.

The Flyers, I guess, are now Canada's NHL team

I've never understood why people get so wound up over who "Canada's team" is in the Stanley Cup playoffs

It certainly wasn't the Montreal Canadiens -- a team that is either loved or loathed in Canada. Same with the Toronto Maple Leafs, for that matter. The rest of the Canadian teams are loved in their home cities and are, usually, treated with anything from respect to indifference elsewhere. It's all to do with how long the Habs and Leafs have been around.

But this notion of who "Canada's team" might be comes up every year, and particularly over the last 15, because a Canadian team hasn't won the Stanley Cup in that long.

Nobody ever mentions the fact most team's rosters, regardless where they play their games, are filled with Canadian players. And Swedes, and Russians, and Americans, and on and on. The NHL, with some competition from the NBA, is truly a world league and that's a positive thing. Besides which, most people cheer for a team for their own reasons, not because the team hails from a given country.

At any rate, here's the numbers on numbers of Canadians on the remaining teams in the Stanley Cup playoffs, pulled direct from their rosters as listed today on team web sites. So looks like the Flyers are Canada's team. Whatever that means. Also, we've listed the numbers of Canadians on the Canadian teams.

Philadelphia Flyers: 14 Canadians.

Pittsburgh Penguins: 11

Detroit Red Wings: 11

Dallas Stars: 11

Calgary Flames: 19

Edmonton Oilers: 18

Montreal Canadiens: 16

Ottawa Senators: 16

Vancouver Canucks: 14

Toronto Maple Leafs: 13

Isn't that interesting? The Leafs and Leafs Nation seem to think they are Canada's team, yet they feature the fewest Canadians.

But who cares, really? Just enjoy the hockey.