Categories
aside

Bracketological madness, volume 2 — Bracket edition

You might have noticed that I wrote a bas­ket­ball-relat­ed post last week, but I'm actu­al­ly try­ing to sep­a­rate my obsess­ing about sports from … well, real stuff. So I post­ed this year's brack­et at Tur­ri­ble, which is intend­ed to be my online man cave. Of sorts. Any­way, don't assume that I post­ed it else­where because, like, I'm ashamed of how bad it is. My ter­ri­ble pre­dic­tions had noth­ing to do with my deci­sion to post it on a blog that no one reads. Noth­ing. Zero. Am I angry that I'm in last place in my brack­et pool? Maybe a lit­tle. But my only regret is that my picks were not more bold. Except, if they had been more bold, I wouldn't be in last place. I mean, how could I have missed St. Mary's over Vil­lano­va? You'll notice in my brack­et notes that I even talk about how bad Vil­lano­va is play­ing; the words "Bad moon ris­ing" were cut off in the scan­ning process under Villanova's first round game. And yet I had them advanc­ing into the Sweet Six­teen. I will ask the now-annu­al, post-sec­ond-round ques­tion: What was I think­ing?

Categories
aside

The correlation between familiarity and value

John Per­ry Bar­low, dis­cussing the Grate­ful Dead's meth­ods of engag­ing its audience:

What peo­ple today are begin­ning to real­ize is what became obvi­ous to us back then — the impor­tant cor­re­la­tion is the one between famil­iar­i­ty and val­ue, not scarci­ty and val­ue. Adam Smith taught that the scarcer you make some­thing, the more valu­able it becomes. In the phys­i­cal world, that works beau­ti­ful­ly. But we couldn't reg­u­late [tap­ing at Grate­ful Dead] shows, and you can't online. The Inter­net doesn't behave that way.

From Man­age­ment Secrets of the Grate­ful Dead, in the cur­rent Atlantic.

Categories
aside

Et tu, John and George?

Jour­nal­ist Mikal Gilmore dis­cuss­es the research of his Rolling Stone cov­er arti­cle, "Why the Bea­t­les Broke Up."

What I found most trou­bling, most trag­ic, in all of this was two things: Both Lennon and Har­ri­son (Lennon, clear­ly, in par­tic­u­lar) did their best to sab­o­tage the Bea­t­les from mid-1968 onward, and when it all came irrev­o­ca­bly apart, I believe that both men regret­ted what they had wrought. I don't think that John Lennon and George Har­ri­son (but Lennon, again, in par­tic­u­lar) tru­ly meant the Bea­t­les to end, even though they might not have known it in the moment. I think they meant to shift the bal­ance of pow­er, I think they meant for the Bea­t­les to become, in a sense, a more casu­al form of col­lab­o­ra­tion, and I think they clear­ly intend­ed to rein in Paul McCart­ney. But they over­played their hand and — there's no way around it — they treat­ed McCart­ney shame­ful­ly dur­ing 1969, and unfor­giv­ably in the ear­ly months of 1970.

Categories
aside

How Nick Van Exel got his 20 assists

Excel­lent Dead­spin post about the undis­ci­plined and occa­sion­al­ly crooked world of NBA score­keep­ing. It's based on the sto­ry of a guy named Alex who once kept score for the Griz­zlies, and it includes this gem about how Nick Van Exel (who wasn't known for his pass­ing, let's say) racked up 23 assists one night:

A lit­tle more than a year lat­er, with Nick Van Exel and the Lak­ers in town, Alex decid­ed to act out. "I was sort of dis­grun­tled," he says. "I loved the game. I don't want the num­bers to be mean­ing­less, and I felt they were becom­ing mean­ing­less because of how stats were kept. So I decid­ed, I'm gonna do this total­ly imma­ture thing and see what hap­pens. It was child­ish. The Lak­ers are in town. We're gonna lose. Fuck it. He's get­ting a shit­load of assists." If you were to watch the game today, you'd see some "com­i­cal­ly bad assists." Alex's fin­ger­prints are all over the box score. He gave Van Exel every­thing. "Van Exel would pass from the top of the three-point line to some­one on the wing who'd hold the ball for five sec­onds, drib­ble, then make a move to the bas­ket. Assist, Van Exel."

Categories
aside

The acid days of Lorne Michaels

Before he cre­at­ed Sat­ur­day Night Live, Lorne Michaels used to send jokes to Woody Allen … A sam­ple: He was obsessed with the notion that, some­where in the world, there is a per­son hav­ing exact­ly the same thought he was at exact­ly the same moment. He decid­ed to call that per­son, but the line was busy. Just the right amount of exis­ten­tial angst for Allen, right? Allen told Michaels that this joke was "bril­liant," and accord­ing to Michaels, the com­pli­ment "kept him going for the next sev­er­al years." Excel­lent anec­dotes in Sat­ur­day Night: A Back­stage His­to­ry of Sat­ur­day Night Live.

Categories
aside

If tall heels hadn't been popular

Date­line: A Mex­i­can dis­cotheque in the ear­ly 1970s. "Rick­ey [Hen­der­son] had a pair of heels on that were about four inch­es high. Every­thing was fine until these peo­ple came in yelling that they had guns. Then they start­ed shoot­ing" … Hen­der­son ducked under a table as gun­fire strafed the room. When the shoot­ing end­ed, Hen­der­son looked down and saw a bul­let hole had gone all the way through the heel of his shoe. "If tall heels hadn't been pop­u­lar, Rick­ey Hen­der­son might have had his career ruined." The nar­ra­tor was for­mer Japan­ese base­ball leg­end, Randy Bass (aka Ba-su), from a 1987 SI pro­file: The Hottest Amer­i­can Import in Japan.

Categories
aside

Dylan on becoming Dylan

"The name just popped into my head one day … I just don't feel like I had a past, and I couldn't relate to any­thing oth­er than what I was doing at the present time. And, it didn't real­ly mat­ter to me what I said. Still doesn't, really."

Categories
aside

Garry Winogrand's Guggenheim grant

Con­tin­u­ing the dis­cus­sion of inter­est­ing and inspi­ra­tional grant-writ­ing exam­ples, here's a piece from pho­tog­ra­ph­er Gar­ry Wino­grand's Guggen­heim fel­low­ship appli­ca­tion, 1963:

I look at the pic­tures I have done up to now, and they make me feel that who we are and how we feel and what is to become of us just doesn't mat­ter. Our aspi­ra­tions and suc­cess­es have been cheap and pet­ty. I read the news­pa­pers, the colum­nists, some books, I look at some mag­a­zines (our press). They all deal in illu­sions and fan­tasies. I can only con­clude that we have lost our­selves, and that the bomb may fin­ish the job per­ma­nent­ly, and it just doesn't mat­ter, we have not loved life … I can­not accept my con­clu­sions, and so I must con­tin­ue this pho­to­graph­ic inves­ti­ga­tion fur­ther and deep­er. This is my project.

Found and for­ward­ed by Leslie.

Categories
aside

Walker Evans discusses Robert Frank

"If that were a ham­mer in his hand he would dri­ve the nail in one or two hard fast per­fect strokes, but not usu­al­ly care­ful. There wd be a ham­mer mark in the wood and the boards wd be joined for­ev­er." — Walk­er Evans, about Robert Frank

Categories
aside

Meetings at the crossroads

Remem­ber when Robert John­son met the dev­il at the cross­roads and returned with a whole new kind of blues? Last night, we watched "Noto­ri­ous," the Big­gie Smalls biopic, and there's a sim­i­lar moment. The movie sort of gloss­es over where Biggie's style came from, imply­ing that it began on the street, but that Big­gie real­ly enhanced it dur­ing nine months in a North Car­oli­na prison. It remind­ed me of Mar­tin Scorsese's Bob Dylan doc­u­men­tary, No Direc­tion Home. Where did the Dylan sound come from? Scors­ese dili­gent­ly goes through all of the mem­bers of the 60's Vil­lage scene, but then there's a gap in which Dylan leaves the scene for a few months and then re-emerges with the style we all know. What is it about cre­at­ing a new style that it has to hap­pen in secret? "Noto­ri­ous" is ter­ri­ble, by the way. I wouldn't have thought it pos­si­ble to make a wood­en, utter­ly unin­ter­est­ing movie about Big­gie, Brook­lyn, the ear­ly 90's, and East Coast v West Coast, but they found a way to do it.