ALBUM REVIEW: Incubus Sets The Bar High For 2004

ARTIST: Incubus
ALBUM: A Crow Left Of The Murder
LABEL: Epic
GRADE: A-



Spanning nearly an hour over 14 tracks, Incubus' fifth album, A Crow Left Of The Murder, is their most consistent and mature to date, and also marks the first true home run rock album of 2004.

Produced and mixed masterfully by longtime Pearl Jam ally Brendan O'Brien, the recording itself achieves the feeling that the listener is privy to a private jam session of the five-piece together in the studio, while at the same time taking that listener into an endless world of sonic textures.

With guitarist Mike Einziger and vocalist Brandon Boyd leading the charge, Crow succeeds in carrying on the holy tradition of great rock bands - drawing inspiration from much of the band's immediate musical ancestry (some of which are also now their contemporaries) and blending them into something unique that the band can call its own. Over the 14 tracks, Crow summons the finer points of some of the great rock albums of the last ten years: the heavy stoner neurosis of Soundgarden's Superunknown ("Made For TV Movie"); the blistering riffery of Rage Against The Machine ("Sick Sad Little World"); the tongue-in-cheekness of Weezer ("Pistola"); the semi-dissonance/resolve used to such great effect by Pearl Jam; and the mellow surfer swagger of the Red Hot Chili Peppers' recent work ("Talk Show On Mute", "Agoraphobia").

But while Boyd's voice soars with often amazing results, the MVP is Einziger, who has managed to put together one of the most inventive and inspired guitar performances in recent memory. Fusing metal, funk, jazz and ambient styles with the precision of a virtuoso, his playing often echoes but never mimicks players like Jimmy Page (Led Zeppelin), Tom Morello (Rage Against The Machine/Audioslave), Brian May (Queen), Vernon Reid (Living Color), John Frusciante (Red Hot Chili Pepers), Alex Lifeson (Rush) and Stone Gossard (Pearl Jam). Judging by his work on this album, Einziger is the brightest and most promising guitarist to have emerged in the new century.

This is not to say that all of this experimenting doesn't have its drawbacks. While most of these songs have memorable hooks for those willing to put in the time to discover them, very few of these songs have you humming along on the first couple of listens the way many tracks on 2001's Morning View did. But one senses that this is due to a conscious effort on the part of the band to make more challenging music for both themselves and for their listeners, which in the end is pretty refreshing in these days of American "Idols".

Like all of their best work, A Crow Left Of The Murder finds Incubus as their moody and adventurous best. For those with any appreciation of the effort to push real rock music further in a world of plastic pop, this album is bound to stay in the rotation for years to come.

========================================================================================
Got something to say? E-mail me at worldaccordingtomontyblog@go.com. I'll do my best to answer all respectful mail and will periodically answer the best messages on the site.

Oil Is Not Well

It appears as if Saudi Arabia's oil reserves aren't going to last forever. Who knew?

I only first remember hearing about running out of oil in the first grade. That was 21 years ago, and we basically haven't done shit. The U.S. Military is supposed to lead us in these grand pursuits of miracle technology, but the only significant vehicular contribution they've made to society is the Hummer, which drinks up gasoline like Larry Eustachy at an after hours party.


"Anyone wanna have a chugging contest?"

Why not save all the money that Bush wants to devote to discovering and drilling more oil fields, and instead spend it on finding another source of energy for when the oil runs out (an event which EVERYBODY agrees is inevitable), thus allowing the U.S. to be the clear-cut leader in the next frontier of energy?

========================================================================================
Got something to say? E-mail me at worldaccordingtomontyblog@go.com. I'll do my best to answer all respectful mail and will periodically answer the best messages on the site.

Ohio Sixth Grader Suspended For Posession ... Of Swimsuit Issue

I wish this was a joke, but apparently it's true. A 12-year-old boy has been suspended from his Ohio school for 3 days for bringing the recently-released Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue to school, which the school's principal claimed violates the school's policy on "nonverbal harassment and possession of lewd or suggestive material".

Lewd? Suggestive? Those are horribly subjective terms, aren't they?

If you want to talk about suggestive, take a good look at what teenage girls are wearing to school these days, or maybe at some of the ads on television or in popular magazines such as Rolling Stone.


Toting a magazine featuring the beautiful Veronica Varekova (above) will get you suspended for three days, but a magazine featuring a topless Britney Spears on its cover -- within which she talks openly about losing her virginity and her lesbian kiss with Madonna -- will probably not.

This is not only the ripple effect of Janet Jackson's boob at the Super Bowl. This is what happens when John Ashcroft sets the national tone for enforcing rules. Now we have armed cops busting into schools with live weapons in the middle of the day in their tireless search for the evils of drugs. At least this kid wins in the end though - he has three days home with the swimsuit issue to masturbate to his heart's content. Of course, if he's at home he'll probably use the same masturbatory aids that everyone uses - internet porn.

A lot of feminists have problems with Sports Illustrated's yearly indulgence, and while I somewhat understand that position (while not agreeing with it), I guess I just don't see what the fuss is about. There's nothing in that magazine that anyone can't see on a July day at Venice Beach, and those poor, objectified women in those tiny swimsuits charge $50,000 a day while they're on location. Meanwhile, men like myself are left to stare and drool, engaged in endless fantasies that will never come true while we should be worrying about more important things like how to get a bigger tax refund and women quietly take over the world.

I feel used.

========================================================================================
Got something to say? E-mail me at worldaccordingtomontyblog@go.com. I'll do my best to answer all respectful mail and will periodically answer the best messages on the site.

Going Down With The Ship?

What's next? An amendment banning divorce?
Has the President already packed it in for the 2004 Election so much that he's trying to ram through the most conservative agenda possible on his way out the door? In a move that wasn't all that surprising, Bush went public today with his support of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.

What is surprising is that Bush, guided by the supposedly savvy Karl Rove, has offered no alternative to gay marriage as a means to ensuring that homosexuals have the same rights that heterosexuals do. Right now, that is what separates Bush from John Kerry, who has been on record in favor of "civil unions" that would function the same as marriages but would just have a different name. Critics have argued that such a move would create a "separate but equal" way of doing things that would echo the days of racial segregation.

I would tend to agree, but consider this: in hindsight, isn't it possible that "separate but equal" was a necessary step in the long-term transition out of slavery? Could civil unions be looked at in the same way?

It's all academic to our President. That is, if your textbook is the Old Testament. Clearly nobody would expect him to be progressive enough to support same-sex marriages, but I'd expect a self-proclaimed "uniter, not a divider" to emerge with a better alternative than "fuck you, and here's a constitutional amendment". This stance has the fingerprints of the church all over it.

Not sure? Consider this statement from Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan yesterday:

"There is widespread support in this country for protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage."

This phrase is being used throughout the country by those opposing same-sex marriage, but nobody stops to consider what it implies.

_____________________________________
sanc·ti·ty noun
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : INVIOLABILITY b plural :
sacred objects, obligations, or rights
_____________________________________


Even if the federal government passed an amendment legitimizing same-sex marriage (which it shouldn't), the "holiness" could still be protected by religious organizations opposed to homosexuality simply by their own decisions not to marry same-sex couples. Since most people of faith seem to only legitimize marriages performed by their respective church anyway, the "sanctity" of marriage would be perfectly safe.

Isn't it time we separated church and state in this country for real?

Bush is doomed if he continues to strengthen the resolve of the left. And things like deficit spending and adding unnecessary amendments to the constitution can't be helping him with bubble voters or with a lot of actual conservatives [read: people who actually understand what the word "conservative" means and still call themselves that].


========================================================================================
Got something to say? E-mail me at worldaccordingtomontyblog@go.com. I'll do my best to answer all respectful mail and will periodically answer the best messages on the site.

Getting Things Straight On Gay Marriage

The United States Constitution doesn't say anything about being gay. Nor does it say anything about marriage [though as those hotlinks will tell you, the .com world does]. Yet, an alarming amount of people in this country seem to support the idea of adding an amendment to the constitution that would prohibit gay people from getting married.

There's a lot of baggage in this issue, but after much consideration I'll start by saying this: The idea that this is "such an emotional issue" is a cop-out. The only emotion involved is HATE on the part of those who are leading the charge for this amendment.

Isn't this primarily about everyone having the same rights? Haven't most of the good amendments been the ones that give people rights rather than taking them away?

For what reason should gay couples not be afforded the same rights as straight couples, especially when you consider the sky-high divorce rate among straight people??? Pretty damning evidence against any argument that straight people are better custodians to the institution of marriage.

I have yet to hear an argument opposing gay marriage that isn't religious in nature, but the Constitution does say something very specific about the separation of Church and State [see Amendment I].

If the federal government would defer to the state governments on issues such as these, which are much more influenced by the constituency, the church would still be allowed to ban same-sex couples from getting married, and everyone in the country would then be living with the same rights. It seems pretty simple to me.

A lot of people argue "but they're breaking the law" in regard to the folks getting married right now in San Francisco and the mayor who has enabled them to do so. Others would say that such a move would open up the same doors for polygamy, but I think both are weak arguments against what is currently going on. What is happening in San Francisco is civil disobedience, and our country has a pretty good history of it -- let's stop calling these people "criminals" and thereby grouping them with the scourge of the earth. To the second point, isn't polygamy -- in which one can have several different spouses -- challenge the dynamics of marriage far more than homosexuality does, which is still a polar relationship?

Maybe the best solution was really devised by Bill Clinton after all -- maybe couples applying for marriage licenses should abide by the infamous "don't ask, don't tell".

========================================================================================
Got something to say? E-mail me at worldaccordingtomontyblog@go.com. I'll do my best to answer all respectful mail and will periodically answer the best messages on the site.

Now Things Are Interactive

E-mail will now be answered, sometimes on the blog, and every post will be tagged as it is below...

========================================================================================
Got something to say? E-mail me at worldaccordingtomontyblog@go.com. I'll do my best to answer all respectful mail and will periodically answer the best messages on the site.

Should We Be Nader Haters?

Bad Timing?

Ralph Nader is not in the hunt, but he's certainly in the race.

Nader's appearance on Meet The Press on Sunday finally confirmed widespread suspicion that he was going to run as an independent candidate for President in the 2004 election. He also may have confirmed my sneaking suspicion that Nader is motivated both by ego and by the far right.

Here's a little flashback from 2000 that talks about one interesting scheme that Nader found last time around for funding his TV ads attacking Al Gore.

There's actually no evidence that Nader's campaign was involved in any of those proceedings, but at the very least it confirms what so many hippy-dippys refuse to believe - NADER'S CANDIDACY IS A GOOD THING FOR GEORGE BUSH. Any way you slice it, if you feel (as I do and Nader claims to) that what's good for the Bush Camp is bad for America, then there's no way to put a positive spin on this.

In fairness, Nader did indicate that he might be willing to drop out if the poll numbers show that his candidacy may help to keep Bush in the White House. Still, isn't Nader always telling us not to trust "polls"?

If Nader is looking to woo reeling Howard Dean supporters, Dean's official statement on the Nader candidacy won't help.

If convinced that Nader is in to stay, whoever emerges from the Dems after Super Tuesday -- or both Kerry and Edwards if Super Tuesday doesn't solve anything -- would be wise to publicly debate Nader in order to nip this in the bud. I'd like to see Nader explain what qualifies him to be Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in human history, as well as how we would account for our massive trade deficits that would be created if the United States pulled out of NAFTA.

In 2000, Nader ran on a platform that there was essentially no difference between the mainstream candidates. We've since learned that he was mistaken, as many underestimated Bush's domestic agenda. This time around, the differences are much clearer. Let's hope that eventually becomes evident to Mr. Nader.

UPDATE: We're Back!!

FTP problems and time constraints have kept the blog down for over a month, but now I'm back with a vengeance and resolve to be more consistent.

Unfortunately, all entries pre-dating January 15 have disappeared from the Archive. Not that this is all that important, but my apologies.

Expect several rants over the next few days as I try to catch up on things. Lots going around in the news right now...

Enjoy...