Killed the captain, sank the fleet

There are a lot of songs which pretty much win you over the first time you hear them. Some of them tend to lose something the second or third time, and sometimes you hear them a few years later and wonder how the hell you ever liked them in the first place. But what really interests me is when you hear a song which, on first listen, holds very little interest, but which gradually (or all of a sudden) becomes one of your favorites.

Take the example of "Heartbeat (Tainai Kaiki II)" by Ryuichi Sakamoto and David Sylvian. The first time I heard it, my attitude was very much "I liked it when they did 'Forbidden Colors' all those years ago, but this new collaboration is a tad too adult contemporary." Now I find it to be the saddest, most moving and beautiful piece of music I've ever known, one which breaks my heart each time it comes on, one of those which would grace every mixtape I made if it didn't feel so goddamn personal. That first piano chord, the little baby sample, some of the coolest "fooking" lyrics I've heard in my life... "Fed on the bible, grown from trees" - man, talk about imagery which perfectly suits the melody.

I wonder, however, when this transformation in taste took place. It's not like I went to bed disliking it and woke up loving it. Nor could I have learned to love it through endless repeat listenings (that would probably have made me hate it, anyway). My guess is: I must have been listening to songs at random (as I tend to do with my I-pod), and the song came up at a pivotal moment. I must have been feeling some strong emotion, and the song mirrored it perfectly,. And now every time I hear it, that same mood becomes dominant.

What I really want to know is this: what was it I had just been through when that song came on? Does that song's significance to me relate to the importance of this now-forgotten event? Perhaps I had just hit someone with my car, and have blocked out the trauma, and can *only* remember what it felt like by listening to that song. Should I undergo hypnosis, as to find out the inner secrets of my personal life which are hidden in an obscure collaboration between two pretentious music nerds?

Or should I just go back on my promise to not make this a standard blog, and post lyrics to a song?

Blood sail leaves tonight, fated in it's blindness
Won't be long before help is at hand
And the darkness sleeps
Cushioning the heartbeat
And I've killed the captain, sank the fleet
To liberate the heartbeat, baby

Love those lines. But what is their secret meaning? What do they say about me? Whose heartbeat? Is it his or the person's he is talking to, or is it some universal heartbeat? Or is it mine? Are there any cryptologists reading who can help me out here?

Movie review #1: "Samurai Fiction"

As much as I love the cheap thrill of a low budget martial arts movie, there is a film nerd inside of me which prefers cinematic achievement over lowbrow excitement. But of course, the best films are the ones which appeal to both sides - fun combat which also has visual flair and a philosophical angle. On first viewing of the trailer, "Samurai Fiction," with its Tarantino-esque regurgitation of pulp styles, looked to be just the kind of movie I always am looking for. So I checked it out, watched it, and came back satisfied - but only halfway.

Quick version of the plot: it's pretty by-the-numbers samurai stuff. Kazamatsuri is a dude who gets hired by a samurai clan to guard a valuable sword, he steals it, and is chased by Inukai, a young and hot-tempered fighter who wants to prove himself. After the two clash once (with the theif being the clear victor), Inukai is befriended by Mizoguchi, an older ronin who urges him to give up the sword for a peaceful life. Kazamatsuri starts working for a local gambling house, Inukai falls in love with Mizoguchi's daughter, and so on.

It's near perfect for the first hour or so - the stylish black and white isn't exactly a new gimmick, but thanks to director Hiroyuki Nakano's unique angles and panning shots, you really do get the impression that you're watching something groundbreaking. The plot is rather uninteresting, but as in most samurai films, the fight scenes are what really keeps things moving. The sword techniques used, while hardly over-the-top, are flamboyant and fun to watch (for example, the way Mizoguchi skillfully dodges his enemy's sword without drawing his own). So fun, in fact, that you don't even realize that the actors are pretty mediocre, with Morio Kazama as Mizoguchi being the only exception. The actresses, however, are a different story altogether - while there isn't any of the standard skin-showing, Tamaki Ogawa (as the daughter) and especially Mari Natsuki (as the gambling cheif) just ooze with sexuality. By using nothing but their facial expressions, they make themselves fun to watch for all sorts of reasons which I will not go into on an all-ages blog.

It's such a shame, then, that second half of the movie is such a huge let-down. Mizoguchi helps Inukai recover, trying to talk him out of his impulsive ways. Inukai falls in love, Kazamatsuri just kind of hangs out, and the movie quickly runs out of steam. To top things off, the end of the film is extremely anticlimactic. It's not that there isn't a final swordfight, it's that there is one. If there wasn't, it would at least tie into the movie's theme of giving up violence - but the actual combat which takes place in the end is short and unexciting. After waiting through an hour of slower scenes, we would expect the end to be a little more cathartic. Even the visuals seem sloppier in the second half, with some shaky cameras and poorly chosen locations, and the lead actors taking an even campier approach.

Apparently, this is the first chapter in a supposed series of films by Nakano, so maybe the following films will do away with some of the flaws. It's such a shame that the end was so subpar - the first half had me convinced that I should buy the movie. Now I'm glad I only rented it.

6 Myths about hip hop:

One thing that is unique to rap music is that nobody simply "doesn't like it." Everyone I have talked to who dislikes hip hop has to have a reason for disliking it, rather than just citing a difference in personal taste. For a fan of the genre like myself, this can get pretty comical - since most of the justifications given ("it's not music, it's just some guy talking") are pretty far off the mark. So here's the first in what will hopefully be a series of essays, dealing with some of the ridiculous beliefs that closed-minded people have regarding hip hop.

Myth #1: Rapping is easy, and anyone can do it - This is my favorite argument used by people who don't like hip hop. Why? Because it's the easiest to come back to. Just say "if it's so easy, then why don't you give it a shot?" I will bet good money that 99% of the people who use this argument couldn't rhyme to save their life. Even a mediocre and justly mocked song like "Ice Ice Baby" is something which obviously took a lot of concentration. And the better the rapper, the more complicated the rhymes become. Examples: The insane rhythm changes on "Chemical Calesthenics" by Blackalicious. Or the brilliant mid-word swapping on Run DMC's "Hard Times."

Myth #2: Sampling is just stealing from a real song - Yes, a lot of mainstream rap tends to borrow its melodies from old funk and rock songs. So? If you ask me, that isn't any more "stealing" than Led Zeppelin borrowing riffs from old blues. It's less so, actually - because hip hop usually gives the original artists credit. Besides - sampling is not limited to simply lifting a bassline off of an old record. The most creative DJs take old source material and mold it into something new - by combining samples from many different sources, it's possibly to create a track which is completely unrecognizable as the sum of its parts. Examples: Gimmicky mixes like the "2 Many DJs" albums, and groundbreaking albums like "Paul's Boutique" by the Beastie Boys and "Fear Of A Black Planet" by Public Enemy.

Myth #3: All rappers are stupid - RACISM. No other word for it. Most famous rappers do come from lower-class backgrounds, but that certainly doesn't mean that they are unintelligent. Again, the complicated wordplay of many hip-hop rhymes should be proof enough of brains. No, the reason many assume rappers to be inherently stupid is simple - the way they talk. If someone uses street slang, then they are clearly less smart than those of us who were raised in the upper class. Look - street dialect is a result of where you are brought up, and there is no way to change it. And if you ask me, judging someone to be inferior based on their accent is every bit as racist as being biased towards the color of their skin. If you think that someone has to talk like a white person in order to be smart, then perhaps you should try thinking about how uncultured you must sound to an Englishman. Examples: Interviews with Mos Def should show you that many rappers are just normal guys with accents. And Chuck D's radio show is some of the best political talk out there.

Myth #4: All hip hop is violent - Completely false. Perhaps "most hip hop is violent" would be closer, but it's still not quite true. I would say "most gangster rap is violent," and then point out that actual gangster rap is a minority in the hip hop world, albiet an incredibly popular and visible one. There is no shortage of gangster rap - but most of it is so localized that it has no chance of catching on - and most of the biggest rap names are those who avoid "east side/west side" affiliations. Many rappers are former gangsters who use their music as an escape from violence - only a handful use it to gain power for their home turf. Besides - gangster rap is dead. Tupac Shakur was the last popular artist in that feild - since then we've seen the rise of smart good-times artists like Outkast, brainy shock-rappers like Eminem, and the continued popularity of mellow acts like the Roots. It seems strange to me that anyone can point to rap in general and call it violent, as if blood and fighting is something exclusive to hip hop music. How many Johnny Cash songs are about killing people? Is "Brown Sugar" by the Stones not about rape and/or heroin abuse? People have learned since the 60's that rock music didn't turn people into devil-worshippers, and they'll learn soon enough that not every rap fan is a gangster in the making.

Myth #5: Hip hop is a bad influence on kids - Perhaps the biggest myth of all. As stated above, most rap is in fact not violent, and many rappers are simply former street kids who strive for something higher. I don't see how that is anything but a great role model to have. A poor kid with nothing to live for always has the option of turning to crime, violence, or drugs - but he can also turn to art, especially if he's exposed to the others who went before him. I point to KRS-One, nicknamed "the teacher" - starting out as an extremely talented gangster rapper, he quickly turned to positive messages, encouraging people to educate themselves while still mantaining his popularity. Or take Public Enemy, who in spite of their ironically criminal title, encourage their fans to stay away from drugs ("Night Of The Living Baseheads") and alcohol ("1 Million Bottlebags"), and urge them to vote, read, and generally do things that most parents would approve of. Bad role models, my ass.

Myth #6: Rappers brag all the time - Actually, this one is completely true. And so what? I don't see what's so bad about having high self esteem. Again, it's only the few gangster rappers who remain who still use this bragging as a way of putting down others. A good deal of rock songs deal with the love of others, I see nothing wrong with writing about the love of yourself. And besides - anyone who thinks that rap would be more appealing if the artists dealt more with lost love and exposed emotion is missing the point. Rap is not about vulnerability, it's about being tough, strong, and dedicated to yourself. There are quite a few whiny rock stars (who shall remain nameless) who I feel could certainly benefit from some of KRS-One's guidance...

More in the future...

Introduction

"Blog." It is a fucking stupid word. And it has been since I have first heard it.

It's allegedly short for "weblog," but nobody actually calls them that. So it's not really a nickname, more of a catchy, hip, and undeniably goofy sounding slang term.

And while I could insist that this, my own "blog," be referred to by a different name (I considered calling it a "Rantjournal" or a "Blahg"), the fact that I am hosted by a site called "blogger" makes denying it rather pointless.

So yes, it is a blog. I accept that. But that doesn't mean it has to fall into the same set of cliches that the rest of the online journal community seems trapped in.

A list of things that this blog will not be:

1. A means for me to vent specifics about my personal life. Because I don't really understand the point. If I want to share my personal crises with people I know, I'll try "talking" to them. Or if that fails, I'll use my "telephone." Talking about your life through a medium where strangers can observe is like going to the bathroom in public - only a person with a serious fecal fetish would enjoy it.

2. A means for me to make vague innuendoes about my personal life. You know - while relating an insignificant story from my day, I oh-so-cleverly hide several references that only one person will understand is in reference to my undying love for them. Or undying hate, or whatever. You fill in the blank. There will be none of that here. If I'm going to try to be clever, I might as well do it in a way so that *everyone* is going to notice.

3. A place for me to rant about political situations which I only know about because I read it on some other blog. I actually plan to steer clear of politics in general, unless I really think I have something to add. There are enough "I hate Bush, etc." sites around, and it would be pretty arrogant of me to think that I could really change anything by taking my own site in that direction.

4. A means to share those HILARIOUS "what Lord Of The Rings character are you?" type quizzes. Those things (and all variations on them) are without a doubt the biggest waste of internet time I have ever run across, excepting myspace and friendster. Most of the questions on them are so specific (for example: "are you a dwarf? yes/no?") that anyone taking it can predict pretty easily what the outcome will be. And besides - if I want to pretend I am a dwarf, then I will take up Dungeons and Dragons. Pretending to be one online just reeks of kinkiness.

5. A place for me to post poetry, or short stories, or song lyrics, or what have you. I'm not that emo. Not yet at least.

So what do I plan on doing with this space? Making observations, ranting, writing funny things that come into my head. Essays on hip-hop, Shibuya-Kei, Los Angeles, movies I have seen, Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy - are just a few of the things I have in store. Things that run through my head which I think other people might also be able to get some enjoyment out of. In short: all of the good things a blog can be used for, without all of the self-indulgent crap that so frequently goes along with it.

At least, that's what I'm shooting for. There is a chance that within a month, I'll be ranting about some stupid happening in my life, or (god forbid) referring to important people in my life by their first initial, or (shoot me before this happens) finding out which Final Fantasy VII character is most like me. If I go that far, I urge anyone reading this to have this blog shut down A.S.A.P. Claim that I showed you kiddie porn, or something. Get me arrested, so I can no longer use this stupid thing. At that point, I will be beyond hope.

In fact, I probably deserve to have that happen, just for using the term "blog." I guess I am doomed...