blogovich

Swim suits as performance-enhancement

The new LZR racing swimsuits have been termed "technological doping".

I agree. I've never understood why people get so worked up about steroids in sports when technological change -- Big Bertha drivers in golf and so on -- are the same thing.

Then there's the obvious reason for them to exist: to make money. These things cost about $550 per unit (paid for by your tax dollars for prospective Olympians) and, according to the article we've linked to, last for four or five swims.

Ridiculous.

More posts on performance-enhancement:

Barry Bonds and performance-enhancement

Heated hockey skate blades isn't performance-enhancement?

Performance-enhancement simplicity in media

 

Led Zeppelin as rip-off artists (II)

This continues to promote traffic, so as a shameless self-serving shill aiming to save you all time and surfing effort, here's the link to the one, the only, the Sept. 20, 2007 Blogovich take on Led Zeppelin as rip-off artists.

Enjoy.

R.E.M. abandons music videos. Says they're a "dead medium". Just figuring that out now?

R.E.M. singer Michael Stipe says the band will no longer do music videos, though he still wants the group's tunes to be accompanied by some (unspecified) sort of visuals.

So, 20-plus years into the band's career, Stipe is just figuring this out? Videos have been the death of rock music.

Never watch them.

Here's a thought, folks. Listen to a song and imagine it. Imagine what it means, what it means to you, how the lyrics may fit into your own life and how the combination of music and words reaches you. Create your own imagery. That's the beauty of it.

It's the same reason why I never read a novel featuring a movie cover. If I haven't seen a movie already (usually read the book, then watch the movie, which almost never measures up), I don't want the book cover telling me what a character or character(s) look like. Nor do I want the movie director's interpretation of the book before I've made my own.

Call me old fashioned, but . . . 

Justin Azevedo and the NHL

The tone of every story one reads about Kitchener Ranger Justin Azevedo seems to be the same:

The NHL better look at this guy. Why hasn't the NHL looked at this guy. The NHL is making a mistake by not looking at this guy.

Well, the Los Angeles Kings are looking at him; they drafted  him 153rd overall over the weekend.

Too low, some say.

Well, think about it this way. Obviously, his size (5-foot-7) has something to do with it. And despite the fact he won just about everything there is to win this past season in terms of individual awards and came up one game short of winning the Memorial Cup, the Memorial Cup -- fairly or unfairly -- may be what the NHL is judging Azevedo on.

From the NHL's point of view, the fact the Spokane Chiefs totally shut Azevedo and his line down in two meetings with the Rangers, including the final, has to be a factor.

I hope Azevedo makes the NHL. I like small, skilled hockey players. Hopefully, he'll become another Theoren Fleury or, more recently, Derek Roy.

But there are reasons the NHL has, pardon the pun, slighted him, whether it be by not drafting him, or, as of the weekend, drafting him so low.

Draft, schmaft

Let’s be honest, sports followers. Is there anything more absurd, ridiculous and time- and money-wasting than sports drafts?

I say this now because I just tuned in to the televised NHL draft.

Just for a laugh. Just for the germ of an idea for a blog post. It doesn’t take much with this nonsense. Took me about 10 seconds to get some material — TSN’s Pierre McGuire, in his usual over-the-top fashion, declaring the Columbus Blue Jackets’ selection of a Russian player to be a pick that demonstrates the Jackets’ “courage”.

Hmm. Courage to me is D-Day soldiers storming the beaches in the face of fearsome fire. Courage isn’t making a daft, er, draft pick.

Off goes the TV. On goes some rock and roll. Humble Pie, if you really want to know. And some Free.

Anyway . . .

Who in their right mind — particularly adults; kids, I can maybe see — would plunk themselves down in a hockey arena, or a hotel, or whatever — to watch names be called? Names with a "talk to me in a few years and we'll assess how good or bad you are/were" tag attached. That’s what a draft is. There are no sure things, and there are diamonds in the rough that are only exposed over time and then are fodder for 20-20 hindsight "I told you so's" or other analyses, such as they are.

Yes, sports drafts are important. It’s how teams stock their rosters. (they also, by any reasonable measure in the real working world, constitute restraint of trade. You and I can choose to work where we want; in sports, it’s accepted that you are locked into the system and woe to those (Eric Lindros, for one) who try to buck it.

So sports drafts are worthwhile. To the teams. Does that mean they should be turned into the ridiculous dog and pony shows they’ve become, populated by, in many cases, many who will never touch NHL ice or NFL turf or NBA court of Major League Baseball diamond? Well, check that. MLB doesn’t make such a big deal of it.

Neither does the Ontario Hockey League, for instance. Years ago, the OHL went to an internet draft. People actually complained. They complained because they figured the OHL was denying its players their big “graduation” day.

Well, if you want that, boys, graduate from high school, college or university.

Regimens and regimes

Not surprised, but I've been taken to task over my recent post on the difference between a regimen and a regime.

"Oh my God!  You mean we now live in a world where one word can have more than a single meaning?  Oh, the humanity!

It's called a homonym.  Deal with it." Signed, D.B.

Which reminds me of a beautiful song by the band Love, Signed D.C. Try it sometime. The live version I've linked to is good, but you must listen to the studio version on Love, the debut album. Great band, great song. And it's not their only good one.

But we digress.

Back to the words in question. I'm don't see that regimen and regime are homonyms at all. At least, not by accepted definition: In linguistics, a homonym is one of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings.

Regimen and regime have different spellings, different pronunciations and different meanings. DB, no offence, but you've helped make my point. Try using a dictionary. It's a lost art. And it results in language, which I concede naturally evolves due to how people use/interpret it, evolving in ways I don't necessarily like. There's no stopping it, but I can lament it.

 

Tiger Woods and his bad knee over the top

I can't be the only one who's a bit sick and tired of Tiger Woods and his aching knee during the U.S. Open, am I?

He's the greatest golfer of our time, no one doubts that. But his constant grimacing during the tournament brought to mind several things:

• If it hurts so much, why are you playing?

• obviously the surgery wasn't very successful

• how come most of the grimacing came after bad shots?

• Tiger, you're too good for all the histrionics that also include club throwing, glaring at anything and anyone that makes a noise when you're swinging, etc.

• Last but not least, the bad knee didn't seem bothersome during the over-the-top, high-torque Tiger celebration after a birdie on the 18th hole forced today's playoff with Rocco Mediate.

New AC/DC album coming (finally)

AC/DC’s new album — yet untitled and about time, boys, it’s only been eight years since Stiff Upper Lip — is due out this fall but will only be sold at Wal-Mart.

The band, like the Eagles and some others, has made a deal for their new material to be released only through Wal-Mart.

Going the Wal-Mart route has caused controversy, much as has the Rolling Stones going through Best Buy for recent concert DVD releases (Four Flicks and The Biggest Bang).

It’s the way of the music business nowadays though, a business fighting the impact of downloading. Does this mean these bands are selling out? Or is it just good business?

For the bands, it’s good business. For the consumer, does it really matter? If you want the album, you’ll trouble yourself to go to the retail outlet that sells it. Or, you’ll download it. From the business’ perspective, obviously it’s an issue. Those of us in the news media business understand this, having taken many hits for this very reason since the dawn of the internet age. Much as you, as an information provider, want the consumer to consume YOUR presentation of the news, music stores want to carry a big-name act’s releases.

From the consumer’s perspective, you just want the album and will get it, regardless. For better or worse, it’s doubtful whether the clock can be turned back.

So we ask you: does it bother you when a rock band’s release is only available through a given retailer?

I must be losing it: I've gotten into Radiohead

It took a compilation to do it, but Radiohead, which I previously considered a sure cure for insomnia, actually are listenable to these aging ears.

My kids, particularly my older son (nearly 20) thinks they're the greatest thing since the proverbial loaf of bread was sliced. So much so that he was going to disown me when it looked like I might not be able to get him the internet-only release In Rainbows last Christmas. I managed, but only for the sake of family unity. It actually had everything to do with me not trusting their web site than wanting to get him the album. At the time, the site looked like a bogus site, what with its depiction of the new album's artwork, which ain't much.

Anyway, to make this short story longer, I once owned all the Radiohead albums, simply for the purpose of trying to figure this group out. I couldn't, so gave up and took 'em all back.

But ah, the compilation The Best of Radiohead (available in one- or two-CD versions) came out last week, so I took a chance. And it's actually good. I always liked the song Creep but not enough to keep Pablo Honey around. And I remember liking The Bends album, losing interest only when the weird but allegedly brilliant OK Computer came out. And then things (to me) got worse as Radiohead's critical praise got even better, if that's possible.

But now, well, I guess it's because the good stuff is all there in one package. For me, Radiohead, then, is a compilation band. With some bands, I need all their stuff and beyond, bootlegs, you name it. Radiohead, I'm satisfied with this, even though none of In Rainbows is on it as this comp is an EMI issue and of course the band has left the label.

This change of mind regarding Radiohead could change, however. I haven't yet listened to the second, apparently "weird stuff" disc, yet.

But I do like lots of Pink Floyd and King Crimson's "weird" stuff, so there's hope yet for Disc 2 of Radiohead's best. Because I'd hate to think I've turned into an old fart in terms of enjoying music. Not just yet, anyway.

Federer is the best, but for Nadal (on clay)

We (sports fanatics) all saw the French Open tennis final today.

Total domination by Rafael Nadal over Roger Federer. Caramba!!

Federer won four games. 4. Nadal won 18 in the straight sets sweep.

Nobody expected this. Sure, people expected a Nadal win, unbeaten as the colosuss of clay is lifetime at Roland Garros. But 6-1, 6-3, 6-0?? Wow.

Sad thing is, given Nadal’s clay dominance, Federer may never win the French Open though he repeatedly advances to the final and must thus be recognized as the second-best clay-court player in the tennis world. (Just an aside, given the record in this rivarly, why is it that Federer is consistently accorded No. 1 seed status in the French? Makes no sense. Nadal is the champion, bar none, on clay).

But we digress. Back to Federer. Arguably the best tennis player ever, he may forever come up short at the French due to Nadal, and thus may never truly be recognized as the master he is, because he may never win the one Grand Slam that has to date eluded him and, today, looked as far (and getting further) as it has ever been from his grasp. But for Nadal, Federer would have long ago ruled at Roland Garros.

On to Wimbledon, where Nadal has proven he is closer to Federer on grass than Federer is to Nadal on clay.

We await the next installment of this remarkable, and happily respectful, rivalry. Tennis remains the overall winner.