There are thousands of protesters in New York City entering the third week in their protest. If you don't know, or had no idea this was going on, its alright I live two hour away by bus and had little of an idea until a few days ago. This has to be the hardest spun story in U.S. media I've ever seen. These Occupy Wall st (WIKI) protests are barely mentioned on nightly newscasts because they're protesting against corporations who own most of the media. And what is said is so blatantly misinformation its disgusting. The first night something was said they said there were maybe a few hundred, but at that point it had grown to thousands.

Even the police are part. The NYPD just excepted a "donation" from JP Morgan for $4.6 Million, one of the many companies the masses are protesting against. And some of the officers of the law seem to be taking advantage.

It is some of the grossest abuse in police force I've seen, to walk up and mace a group of unarmed women already behind a barrier and walk away without arresting or saying anything is disgusting. And more than twenty thousand people saw him do that live streamed on the internet. Though things the videos like this have made a group of veteran marines decide they should help the people. I'm not saying every cop acted like that, for every officer Anthony Bologna (the man who used the pepper spray, whose name was found out by Anonymous, and is still under investigation about incidents in 2004), there are dozens of police who are trying hard to do the job right.

Corralling protesters to the Brooklyn Bridge so they can be arrested is not how you go about "doing it right". And it wasn't "dozens", 700 were arrested on the bridge for "obstructing traffic".

The twitter hashtags about these events are mysteriously not trending. In New York. Instead I have a promoted #heresthebeef, followed by things like #meandyoucantdate, and #thingsthatgetmepissed. And the searchable tweets corresponding to relevant searches seems thinner than it was before, despite a growing number of people joining in.

Just the fact that people across oceans in different countries are more aware of what's been happening in past weeks through their own newscasts and live streams is very telling.

I don't think you should worry or panic yet.

There have not been any riots, as far as I can tell in New York about this, and I'm curious, if anyone's heard any of the protesters become violent, or is the brutality one sided? And if you live in the city, what have you heard or seen regarding Occupy Wall st?

There are few things from my childhood, that not only hold up, but at least try to change in a way that makes sense for the time that it's in. After last Tuesday's release of the newest Mortal Kombat, I realized that franchise oddly fits.

Although the nickname for this newest entry is MK9, I tend to split up the entries into two major trilogies. It's makes sense story wise, almost!

First there was Mortal Kombat 1, I imagine in the arcades at the time some people wer like, "hey what's this" and played a round or two. Honestly, if you played the game whether it was the original arcade or the home versions, there isn't much there. The fighting mechanic is rather stiff, and slow. The whole game was put together by less than a handful of people, but the game had a few good things about it, crazy characters, some of which have become iconic fighting game characters, Scorpion and Sub-Zero come to mind. And blood, there was that. You hit someone, and the victim would go into a stun like animation and a little red would spurt out of them, somewhere. Then there was that day, someone was probably messing around after a match when they put together the right combination of directions and hit the right button when it happened, the first fatality. It probably happened differently in every arcade, but everyone had that same, "what the hell was that" moment. THen all the people trying to recreate what they witnessed, trying it on other characters to see what they did, if they did so differently. It must have been a fun place to be, I think. And yes, I'm well aware that the violence in the first Mortal Kombat was nothing but a total gimmick. That actually kind of worked. THere were a lot of rumors and secrets in the game, just getting to see Reptile might cause someone to have a "WTF" moment the first time, and many people probably didn't understand what an "Ermac" was thinking it was another hidden fighter.

 When the second Mortal Kombat came out, it started a few trends for every sequel after. First is taking the previous game and trying to improve or do something better than before, but and most noticeable was the increase in violence. More blood, crazier special moves, increased number of fatalities. They also made taking what was either a secret or a rumor  and making that real. Two characters came this way, the most obvious, Reptile, and one that wouldn't come out until a later game, Ermac. That's not all it did, MK2 had a much cleaner looking style of digitized people throwing punches and spears. They also added something to the finishing moves that were out of left field. Friendships and babalities. Which, in my mind is the beginning of the weird.

 With Mortal Kombat 3 I distinctly remember for the first time in an arcade seeing that crowd of people gathered round a cabinet to see what was going on. Since they were all bigger than I was at the time, I had to wait, a few months to see what was what. MK3 is an odd entrant, beginning with the lack of the Scorpion character. And MK3 is the first time where they changed the control scheme up by adding one button, run. That simple button meant the gameplay sped up considerably, there was no use in backing up, your opponent could make up the space much faster. The third game also added a combo system that was very cookie cutter and memorization heavy.

Also, there was one special edition called Ultimate MK3, which added a slew of new characters in the roster of combatants. And the game Mortal Kombat Trilogy based on th MK3 engine added every character up to that point, including some of the earlier versions of them, like an MK1 version of Raiden in the mix.

 The fourth Mortal Kombat has a few distinctions itself. For one, it's the first not to have digitized graphics, but have 3D character models,  and have a sidestep into a 3rd dimension during combat. It's also the last numbered Mortal Kombat in the series, all the rest have subtitles, and the last to use the original control scheme, with high and low punches and kicks, and the run button.

Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance, is the first game in the second trilogy. It continues the use of 3D in the fighting, and changes the controls so they're labeled attacks 1 through 4 and takes away the quick sidestep for more natural side movement.  Story wise, MKDA starts out crazy. The sorcerers Shang Tsung and Quan Chi team up and kill Liu Kang, the main hero of the Mortal Kombat series.  It also added the first of several new modes, Konquest mode, where you chose a character and went through all their moves and some combos and had a map with a path on it which you moved forward on every time you completed another task. Each character themselves had three fighting styles, two unarmed and one with a weapon, which you could change anytime by a button press. And this new game introduced the Krypt, as you played the game you collected Koins, that could be used in the Krypt to unlock characters, hidden extras and artwork.

The next game, MK Deception refined what Deadly Alliance brought, including adding multiple fatalities per character, stage fatalities, added suicide finishing moves called Hara-Kiri, more characters and a redefined Konquest mode. Konquest now was a 3D environment where you controlled a single character (Shujinko) through the game's story. You went through the different realms, like an adventurer opening chests and defeating enemies.

The last in the second trilogy is subtitled Armageddon, and a lot like game MK Trilogy when they went to decide who to put in the game's roster, they said, "all of them", and added two characters still. Konquest mode mimicked the one in deception to a point, except it borrowed some elements from the spin-off game Shaolin Monks. One of the main differences between this and all previous MK games are the fatalities. All the games before had individual fatalities for every character, Armageddon had something called Kreate-a-Fatality, maybe mostly due to the fact that the game had over sixty characters and the games memory couldn't handle it all. This game also had a Kreate-a-Fighter, where you could make your own combatant in Mortal Kombat.

After Armageddon, in sort of half break from making another straight MK fighting game, they made Mortal Kombat vs. the DC Universe. Definitely one of the more stranger points in MK history, pitting MK characters like Scorpion and Sub-Zero against DC's more popular characters like Superman and Batman. It had a more complete story mode, switching your control of the fighters as it made sense. And only the MK and the DC villains had fatalities, heroes like Batman had what was called a heroic brutality, because they don't kill people.

Last Tuesday the latest MK game was released. Although just called Mortal Kombat, sometimes it' shortened to MK9, because it's the ninth Mortal Kombat I guess. It takes the 3D model type characters of the previous three games, but instead of fighting in three dimensions, the game is locked in a 2D plane. That makes the gameplay a throwback to the earlier Kombats. The story is a retelling of the first three games. This game also takes the story mode from MK vs. DC and makes it 100% better, it goes from cut scene to fight seamlessly, even if you save and come back later to continue I didn't see very much loading, it just picked up where you left off, and it was much lengthier than I thought it was going to be. And this game has a separate arcade mode where you fight a ladder of ten opponents and two bosses, as both single and tag team. This game also has a mode called the Challenge Tower. It's just a ladder of 300 challenges where sometimes you simply fight a opponent and need to perform a specific finishing move, or you have to fight against three bosses with one life bar, or perhaps still you need to fight someone, with no arms. Two players can fight in a mode called Test Your Luck, where a roulette wheel pops up before each round throwing different variations into the mix, like vampiric kombat, or rainbow blood, or the screen will go dark every few seconds. It has been less than a week and I'm having a lot of fun with it.

Mortal Kombat has definitely evolved itself over the years to keep up with the times. Although it has had a few setbacks, I think it has been a mostly successful franchise that I am fully liking the newest version of, and hope it continues to grow and make improvements on itself.    

Recently I decided to re watch the DC comics animated series from the nineties. Started with Batman, currently on the Superman series and will watch what I have of the Justice League when that's done. I think by watching the Batman and Superman series' so close together I started noticing a bunch of little differences between the two shows, mostly having to do with the "spirit" of the character.

First noticeable difference is the theme and intros.

Let's start with Batman

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DSrSdVQU7A]

Both the visuals and sound are dark, mysterious, and moody. Also, I read this was the first time guns were shown and fired in an animated series in decades, and the fact that we clearly see Batman punching one of the bank thieves means this show is not intended for kids. Because two years later the Spider-Man series debuted on Fox Kids, and in the whole show Spidey never hits anyone on-screen, and I remember there being a lot of lasers and not bullets.

And Superman

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUcKJflBG8Q]

The first five seconds are much like Batman's theme, except where the Dark Knight's explodes in a dynamic score, Superman's swells into a more light and happier tone. Being the Man of Steel, guns are also shown in this series, to show Superman's bullet proofness, but Big Blue only hits robots and aliens.

That general tone continues in the visuals throughout, Batman is darker and filled with shadows, while Superman is bright and in daylight a lot of the time.

Then I noticed something I hadn't before. The first episodes of Superman are his origin tale, his journey from Krypton to Metropolis. There is no beginning to Batman, he simply always is. And what was needed to be told of Bruce Wayne's past is in flashbacks. I like Batman's way of that kind of storytelling better, but in Superman there are more points that carry over between episodes, rather than them being individual. It's like they were telling lots of awesome Batman stories, and when it came time to do the Superman cartoon they found a way to connect them all together.

Both Superman and Batman have their fair share of antagonists, and maybe their most iconic villains, Lex Luthor and The Joker respectively, had different roles in each series. Whereas The Joker takes his part in his fair share of episodes, Lex is center stage in many episodes throughout the series, and behind many of the other reasons Clark Kent is "out of the office" on an average workday.

There are probably many more differences like that, but those just stood out to me this time.

I think it would have been awesome to see more individual series with different DC characters, maybe not several seasons of each one, but a Flash and Green Lantern series would have been awesome. Also crazy expensive and time consuming, so I understand why there isn't. And I'm not going to complain about the Justice League series either, that was good and I'm going to get to watching it again soon.

I don't have much experience with massively multiplayer games like World of Warcraft. I just started playing that a few months ago, and it's going pretty alright. What really got me intrigued in the genre is DC Universe Online. So I'll most likely end up comparing those two particular games a lot.

I've only had the DCUO game for about a week, and so far I like it. I haven't had any moments where I thought, "Well, what am I supposed to be doing now" as I've had for WoW. I'm really digging the character creator, I've made half a dozen superpeople and will probably make a few more. Also the DC comics universe is something I enjoy, so flying around and fighting alongside Superman is awesome to me.

Speaking of the character creator, it's simple to make any kind of hero or villain you can think of. It's not as robust in the facial features as I'd like, and there are only three types of body sizes, a small, medium, and large choice. Which, if you're making a guy looks like a teenage boy, a full-grown man, and a hulk-like physique. If you are making a lady, it's the same model just scaled up or down depending on what you want. Once you get past that you can make your character into anything you can think of, similar to a copyrighted character, or make one up yourself.

The only real limitations with the character editor are with what they call "mentors". Being a comics based MMO there are two easily definable factions, hero and villain. There are many types of different kinds on each side, but in DCUO there are only three and they're the same for each side. The Superman/ Lex Luthor physical, Batman/ Joker gadget type, and the Wonder Woman/ Circe magic. It's too samey on each side. What if I want to be a Green Lantern, or have Green Arrow as a mentor. Or maybe I'd like be similar to the Scarecrow, or robotic like Metallo. I'm not saying there aren't ways and paths down on skill trees to be Hal Jordan, I'm saying I'd like the choice at the beginning. And what about Aquaman? What if I wanted to talk to fish?

And the lack of variety doesn't end there, every hero or villain you make, the first half hour is the same escape from Brainiac's ship, which leads directly into an odd point. Near the end of the level, you get to fight alongside either Superman or Lex Luthor depending on what you pick. And at that point you feel like no matter what skill tree you go down those enemies aren't that much of a threat to you. You're tearing through them left and right, but your comrade has trouble. Which if your fighting alongside Superman should never happen against those low-level types of foes. In WoW most of the races have their own different starting areas.

One of my complaints with WoW however is that sometimes, I just don't know what to do. I'll be in an area doing quests, then I can't find any more to do. Either there are and I can't find the guy with an exclamation above his head, or there really aren't any there, I think both of those have happened once or twice. In DCUO I've never had that problem, and I haven't really been running low on quests to do so far and the ones I've been on aren't that bad.

Which is another thing, I haven't seen a fetch quest so far in DCUO. I'm not saying they are bad, or that there aren't any in DCUO,  it's just in WoW at any point I can be on five or six quests each of them are "collect x of random object". The quests in DCUO often times have multiple objectives to do in a line, ending in a "dungeon" where you fight a DC villain, if you're playing a hero. Instead of the back and forth doing one job at a time before a quest line ends. I know there are way more fun objectives in WoW than playing fetch with people, and I might end up not liking the structure of the quests in DCUO, but for right now I'm having more fun fighting Bane than a seemingly random bigger tiger.

Something WoW has that DCUO doesn't is a job system. In WoW, I can have a character specialize in something like mining or fishing, that can help benefit me and other players. I haven't found anything like that in DCUO.

Admittingly, I have done little if any actual multiplayer events in WoW. There's something about playing with random people online that never sits well with me. It's the abundance of assholes really. I mean, I have tried a PvP battleground in WoW, but unless I really want to just spawn and die while running around like a jack-ass I can't see myself doing many of these by myself. In DCUO there are things called alerts, where a group of players goes does a whole mission together with combined quest objectives. It's pretty awesome when you're not exactly sure what to do with an objective and you have three more pairs of eyes looking for that last computer you have to hack when your turned around and don't know where you are in the map.

I am having a lot of fun playing both games as of right now. I still feel like there's a lot I can do in both games before I feel I've reached the end. Given the subscription nature of both products, I might not keep both active at the same time though, I think the time off from either game will help keep them fresher longer. And so far I'm having a lot of fun in both.

It's getting to be "that time of year" again. The Grammy's are a few weeks away, followed by the Oscar's two weeks after that. Those two events are supposed to be a celebration of the year's top chosen by the industries they represent. Neither of which I have any plans to watch.

Now, I'm not saying these types of shows shouldn't exist, people can do what they want. And they do commend what they think are the top of the field. It's just that from where I sit, it really doesn't matter at all. I don't feel outraged when someone wins "album of the year" when I could name a few more deserving entries. Like I'm not going to like U2 any less than I already do, because How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb won, Nor am I going to like Alanis Morissette more because she won an award. And really, neither should anyone.

Yes, you can look at the nominees for something like "best picture" and watch movies you hadn't heard of or something you might not have had a chance to watch when it came out and forgot about. You might discover a new actor or director to like and you want to watch more of their movies. That's always a good thing.

And I really don't get the people who like a band, and then they win an award, so the person who liked them two months ago no longer likes them. What? Why? You had no problem with what they were doing before, and they didn't do anything exactly wrong except being picked by people they most likely don't know for an award they probably didn't think they were going to win. It's just an excuse, and you probably didn't like them to begin with.

Also I think it's weird when a non local professional sports team wins a championship and suddenly I see a gaggle of people in San Francisco Giants hats and jerseys. Y'all weren't wearing those a month ago, must be awesome on the bandwagon. That sentiment get's doubly weird for me when someone tries explaining why I should watch a movie because it won the 1959 movie of the year. I'm not saying I'll never watch a Giants game, or Ben-Hur, I'm saying I'd like a little more persuasion then a "c'mon" to get me motivated.

I don't think most people really pick their favorite music and movies from award show wins, or at least I'd like to think not. Although someone I knew said they never saw a particularly popular movie because it didn't make that much money at the box office. That argument made no sense to me either.

If you are the type of person who watches shows like the Grammy's, because that's what you like and your "thing", that's cool. Just don't try to say I should have watched it to see Beyoncé give a good performance, because I saw that, and she missed a verse in that song she sang that wasn't her's last year, and that was awkward to my ears. So you go ahead and have a good time.

Earlier this month, on election day, the Supreme Court heard opening oral arguments in the EMA vs. Schwarzenegger case. The EMA is the Electronic Merchants Association, and the case the governor of California is bringing to the Supreme Court in Washington DC, is a law that would ban "deviant violent video games" to minors. The law itself has been declared potentially unconstitutional by all of the lesser courts in California, and in similar bills in other states, which is why it's being heard on a national scale.

You can actually read and download the transcript of the hearing at   Joystiq.com

Firstly, I've not been a minor for some time now, so right off the bat I thought that this really doesn't affect me. And secondly, I'm a resident of the state of New York so I wouldn't be immediately effected at all if the Californian bill was to pass.

Then after a bit of thought, and some commentary on the subject, I think this law is as exactly how the lower courts of California called it, at least potentially unconstitutional.

Schwarzenegger and company's primary complaint, is that there is no way for parents to tell how violent a video game is in the store. Except there is, the   ESRB, and they have a comprehensive list of ratings and what they mean. Coupled with the fact that on the back of every boxed copy of any video game sold in stores has an explanation of why it has such rating.

Think of the ESRB as the MPAA of video games. The MPAA is an association of people who rate the movies the come out, mostly theatrical releases. They have a comprehensive list of ratings as well, and by now most people know the difference between a family friendly rated "G" movie, and a rated "R" horror flick. And to add something, if "a minor were to walk up and buy a ticket to an "R" rated movie, proceed to enter the theater watch said movie and walk out, there is nothing anyone can do about this. The kid's mom might get upset and have a word with the theater's manager, but he is not going to get fined, there is no one above him who can enforce the ratings. So he let's the woman know how sorry he is that her son saw such potentially violent possibly sexual images, and he may even offer her a pair of free tickets, but there is nothing she can do. It's up to the theater's themselves to provide a barrier of protection. The same thing goes for the ESRB, except the stores in question have a more strict policy. That same minor will not be able to buy that copy of   Jaws Unleashed  for his   Playstation 2, though he could go see Jaws if he wanted more easily. Even I have been asked for my I.D. at my local Best Buy for games, and I've walked into bars and had drinks without being carded.

The second place the law maker's bill falls apart in is the actual wording. As pointed out by Justice Scalia

Justice Scalia: "What's a... a deviant violent video game?"

Zackery P Morazzini (there on behalf of petitioners): "Yes, Your Honor, Deviant would be departing from established norms"

Justice Scalia: "There are established norms of violence?"

The Justice goes on to point out the violence in the Brothers Grimm fairy tales, which the Californian officials had no intention of banning them, though the stories are just as violent as some of the games they are trying to get banned.

And more to the point, what is "deviant" violence? Is my definition the same as yours? How different is that from my grandmother? Or from a soldier who has seen battle in a war? The answer of course is that everyone has different answers to the same question. Everyone has different levels of everything. Nations of the world have different answers. In Japan for example, you cannot show decapitation in movies and games. Making the Japanese version of the game   Ninja Gaiden 2  very different from the one I played in the US.

What caught my attention is Justice Scalia's almost sardonic proposition for a Californian Board of Censorship, to declare things obscene or not, and possibly hand out fines to those who act against them. Like the FCC can for radio and television. The bad thing is how broad a name like "The State Board of Censorship" can be. It starts by handing out its rules for video games, Ed Boon and the new M ortal Kombat  is effected first, they can't do what it is that makes that game that game,  because they aren't going to make a different version for one state, so they change it. Then other game developers start changing their ideas and games because they suddenly can't do what they once could or are unsure of what is what and make a more safe game as to not get banned. Then after a number of years someone writes a book, maybe it's of the horror genre, maybe it's a grim retelling of a serial killer's biography. The same board who declared, because of the Mortal Kombat game, which had an over the top violent factor. The killer in the book does the same act so the board declares the book the same as the game. Or perhaps a movie becomes so known for its violence, like   Hostel, and they become banned.

I know what you might argue. First amendment and free speech. Yes, I agree with that. The thing is however, television. You know what you never hear on a show on NBC, or FOX on a Thursday? Anyone use the word "Fuck". Why? The FCC can fine them thousands of dollars because someone somewhere might find that term offensive. The FCC as a whole has too much power, and is so inconsistent, it's hard to tell what's what.

And the question I've always had is, what makes the word fuck bad or offensive? I've heard argument, "It's just bad", or that "it's not in the good book". And honestly, I need a better explanation. the former is how a parent handles a small child questioning authority, "it just is". The latter however, is terrible for a number of reasons, i'm sure the word "internet" does not appear anywhere in the Bible, yet that is not offensive.

Do I really think the law will be declared constitutional and be put into practice? No. The attitude toward the bill by the Supreme Court at the hearing makes me think they are thinking about it similar to the way I am. I don't know why California is has such fervor to get this particular piece of legislation passed, I know there have been at least talks about similar bills in New York and Connecticut. The main difference being California is broke, and has far bigger problems than minors buying that latest mature rated video game. I think they think they've gone too far to stop short of the top the is the United States Supreme Court.

These videos have either a Halloween theme or have aspects that would be from a horror movie, except they aren’t at all, and really have nothing to do with either the holiday or the movie genre. So with that being said, there won’t be any Marilyn Manson, even if this was a top spookiest videos and he was there, would I really be trying?

So, in not really any of a particular order:

5. N’sync

Drive Myself Crazy

They’re in an asylum, padded walls and silk jammies, how wonderful. Not like the white monotone one Sarah Conner is in, in Terminator 2 either, or dirty and run down as found in a multitude of movies.
  

4. Weezer

(IF You’re Wondering if I Want You To) I Want You To

Obviously, the entire town is clones of the band, a man loses his arm in a chainsaw accident and another gets plowed with a car. Except in the video, unlike a horror movie where the “outsiders” go into town and discover a shady underworld, the woman who passes through this town is clearly and antagonistic creature, because the clones of the town are celebrating a summer festival and nothing goes wrong until the woman passes by, and eventually gets thrown out.
  

3. Blur, Song 2. For a small room, those guys sure do get thrown around a lot. And is there a storm brewing? Sounds like that house could be haunted, call you local priest for an exorcism.
  

2. Bonnie Tyler

Total Eclipse of the Heart

This is creepy enough on its own.  City of the Damned glowing eyes choir, girl wandering alone down a hallway at night, that kid in the chair with the wings… and ninjas, for no apparent reason.
  

1. Green Day

When I Come Around

You know whats great about Halloween when you’re a kid? Trick or Treating. Walking around the neighborhood, or several neighborhoods going door to door for candy. The one time a year where is it not only ok to talk to and accept candy from strangers, but is encouraged. Clearly this video has the same theme, the band wandering around, those people in the windows are waiting for the little trick or treaters arrival, or awaiting their guests arriving their Halloween party.
  

Trends come and go in the music world, a lot tend to fade out just as quickly as they came (Kriss Kross and the majority of those late eighties early nineties hair metal bands for example) or go on seemingly forever, the Beatles being an exemplary case of longevity. Anyone who listens to the radio today may notice two examples of current trends, those being Lady GaGa and Nickelback. The former makes insanely good, catchy, and original music, while the latter constructs songs that are formulaic, generic, and sound far more like a youth garage band

LAdy GaGa

First always comes the genesis of the story. Lady GaGa, whose real name is Stefani Joanne Angelina Germotta, learned the piano at age four, wrote her first ballad at thirteen and within a year started performing at open mic nights. By seventeen had been one of twenty people to have early admission to New York University’s Tisch School of Arts, and a year later in 2008 was hired by Interscope music executive Vincent Herbert to be a music writer on her twentieth birthday. Her song “Telephone” for example was originally written for Britney Spears’ Circus album, but did not appear on the record, so Lady GaGa recorded her own version of it, and had Beyonce featured on it.

Nickelback

Nickelback features Chad Kroeger on vocals and guitar, his brother Mike on bass, Ryan Peake on guitar and vocals, and Ryan Vikedal currently on drums. They began around 1995 as a cover band in Hanna, Alberta Canada. Their name comes from Mike’s employment at Starbucks, where the popular item on the menu came to a $1.45, where people would just hand him a dollar fifty and he would have to give them a “nickel back”  for change. In 1996 Chad, Mike and their cousin who is no longer in the band started writing original music and lyrics with Ryan where they came up with their name. Within the following year they had enough songs for a seven song demo they entitled “Hesher” and started supporting it with live shows. And in 1997 Nickelback released their debut record “Curb” and pushed it with a non-stop touring attitude. It’s around this time the band had their original drummer leave the band and had a few people try to fill in until they got current drummer Ryan Vikedal in the band.

Poised in their respective places, both talents had a breakthrough. Lady GaGa dropped out of the New York school because she thought she could teach herself music better than anyone could teach it to her, and was signed to and dropped from Island Def Jam records before signing with Interscope. Writing all her own songs, her debut single “Just Dance” was the first of numerous number one singles.

Nickelback’s second CD released in 1999 (in Canada and 2000 in the US) under the bands own independent label, and the had a top twenty hit with the track “Leader of Men”. And after that success they were quickly signed to major recording label Roadrunner after touring for the album. Having wanted to be bigger in the United States Nickelback wrote and recorded their third album “Silver Side Up” containing the single “How You Remind Me”, which took off in both the US and Canada making it to number one on both rock charts.

Since you can’t please everyone with the music you make, no matter how hard you try, there will be people out there who will criticize your work. Lady GaGa might seem the easier of the two. Her alien and garish outfits, and some of  the things she says, like she doesn’t like to have sex because she’s afraid of losing her creativeness through her vagina during the process are two major faults. Except when you take two seconds to look and think about her and not just dismiss her as just another pop singer. First is her music education, learning piano at an early age, and being able to write pieces before being able to legally drive, being accepted into a music university early, dropping out and being signed to two major record labels before being able to buy alcohol, she’d have to have some kind of musical talent to do that. Another reason I’ve heard people give, is that Lady GaGa is just copying what Madonna did. Similar as they may be on an attempt to dismiss, I will say Madonna’s fashion was very influential, and her eighties “street urchin” look included fishnet gloves, series of bracelets and necklaces, and short skirts. Lady GaGa however doesn’t wear pants, and has worn a dress made of kermit the frogs. nothing that anyone would or should wear daily.

I'd like to say I have many interests, I watch the   Jets  on Sunday during football season, I like reading   Batman  comics, I enjoyed watching   Robin Hood: Men in Tights  the other day on   Netflix, I'm kind of excited about the new Borderlands game of the year edition  video game. What I love however, is music. From before I can remember, or so I've been told, I've always been into that branch of art. I've gone through many different phases in a variety of different styles, and those experiences shaped my passion for the way I love music today.

According to my mom, who would have the only recollection of this, because I was in that age where I was young enough to not remember, and still in a car seat, my first song I sang along with the radio was   Starship's "We Built This City". I only know this because my mom does what moms do, every few years or we have a conversation about whatever and that gets derailed and we go on a tangent and she asks me if I remember certain things, like when we used to live in   Poughkeepsie, and if I remember singing to this song. I have to tell her no, I'm pretty sure that all happened before I was three. What I can remember though, are my   Alvin and the Chipmunks  records. I used to listen to those everyday. I had maybe three of them, and I'd have to call my mom over to help me with the record player when I wanted to switch them. I also had a   Romper Room  record, and I really miss having those copies, though I'm sure they would not be in the best shape.

My first time actually recognizing a pop song on the radio was a Tina Turner song, I might have been "We Don't Need Another Hero" from the   Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome  soundtrack. I don't know how I knew that, I don't remember  how that knowledge entered my possibly four-year old brain, and needless to say my mom was slightly amazed, it was one of those things she told my father at the dinner table that night. I didn't think much of it at the time.

Growing up I couldn't help being influenced by the music my parents listened to. My dad was a classic rock guy.   Led Zeppelin,   The Who, and   Hendrix  were some of the bands he listened to, with an occasional  Chuck Berry  or   Cream. I remember there being lots of   Eric Clapton.

My mom is a little different, she had records I don't ever remember her playing.   Best of Blondie  was one of them, but she listened to the radio a lot. There's nothing wrong with that, it's like being exposed to a whole slew of pop music at once, but I never got real sense of which artists she liked more, or which ones she disliked. I got a lot of, "Man they used to play this song all the time back when I was younger". Although, I do remember her giving me a few cassettes to listen to, I don't remember what most of them were, but I know one of them was the soundtrack to   Miami Vice. Even today, I'll walk into the room with her and the radio on and listen to a few seconds and turn to her and ask "Metallica"? My mom will quip back, with an "I didn't know, it was on and it wasn't hard so I stopped there". Which then the song always goes from the light intro, to the heavy guitar riffs, and she changes the station. I suppose I'd have to say my mom today is a country music

Although it wasn't until years later I found out my mom likes   the Beatles, because she got one of their CD's. And only a few years ago when we were talking about something she confessed to being a   Neil Diamond  fan, and liked Bobby Sherman  as a teenager.

And my grandmother played a smaller influence to me. She was an   Elvis Presley  fan, they went to the same high school, although I think different years, so they never actually met there, but I think that's cool. One time she was watching a biographical movie about Elvis, like   Walk the Line  was about Johnny Cash, on T.V., and she got frustrated because the actor playing Elvis had the wrong color eyes. Something I'm pretty sure only a superfan would notice. I can also remember hearing her say that the song " Mr. Bojangles" always reminded her of my grandfather.

The first real album I got after saving up my own money, was   M.C. Hammer's   Please Hammer Don't Hurt'em  around 1992. I thought it was a pretty good album, despite it being the only cassette I had for what I can remember being a long time. And I played it on a little playskool cassette deck, complete with mono sound. I always found it weird that when I had headphones on the sound would only come out of the left ear, and at first I thought my tape was messed up, but when I played it through the big stereo we had out in the living room in my house, and plugged in headphones I was surprised to hear that I got sound from both sides. It was awesome, like listening to the album for the first time all over again.

I'm ninety-nine percent sure the next album I got after Please Hammer Don't Hurt'em was M.C Hammer's follow up album " 2 Legit 2 Quit", where I thought it was kind of silly he dropped the "M.C.", but what was I going to do? The album itself was alright, I liked it, but I never thought it was better than the previous one I had. That Adam's Family song I listened to often.

Then I got this dual cassette stereo with AM FM stereo. By no means was it an awesome stereo system, but it got the job done. Also I was able to use a power chord to plug it into a wall outlet, which was a huge step up from always having to use batteries, because man when they got low in power and couldn't quite make the spindles spin at a consistent speed that was a creepy experience when you least expect it.

Shortly after I got the stereo I got a blank cassette tape, which I thought was cool after it was explained to me what the object I just received was, and what I could do with it. At first it was a lot of recording myself do strange things, mainly fake radio stuff. Then I had this fantastic idea of putting the tape in the playskool player, and then recording the radio from dual cassette stereo in my room. I thought the idea was the best, and for a week or so getting a handful of real horribly recorded songs my dad told me I could just put the tape into the second tape deck and use that to record a way better version than what I had been doing. That was like adding your favorite topping on a delicious pizza, and I was excited that it worked.

I only really listened to one radio station doing that when I started, and it wasn't the best station I could've been listening to, they played your average top 100 songs of whatever week it was, and a lot of dance music. To this day I can't stand listening to   "Be My Lover" by La Bauche.  I think one time they played that song three times in one hour. The station would have terrible hours like that, and I'd get frustrated that it wasn't playing good music and I'd go do something else for a bit and come back and they'd be playing a   Collective Soul, or   Gin BLossoms. I thought those songs were far superior to that really lame stuff they were playing before.

Later of course I realized different stations played different music, and there were some that played the music I liked more often and played different records and bands, like Green Day. That's how I got my music for the most part for the better of at least two years. I'm sure I have that tape around somewhere, with the craziest track list you could think of.

And then 1996 happened. Which for me was the most amazing time for music. It all happened because I was on summer vacation, sitting on the couch watching MTV and VH1, flipping back and forth watching music videos. One channel would play something I wasn't to fond of and watch the other until the same thing happened. Then one day I saw the video for   Alanis Morissette's  " You Learn", and I thought it was a pretty good song and as a song like that does it got stuck in my head, so I did more channel flipping, trying to get to listen to that song, because when I get a song stuck in my head the first thing I want to do is give it a listen, sometimes it only takes half the song and I'm good, and sometimes only the whole song will do, and rarely I'll listen to one song over and over until it gets out of my head. I never really know until I'm done. But what had happened was, Alanis had a new video out, that I first saw on VH1. I know that in the grand scheme of the universe, I don't think anyone would actually guess "Head Over Feet" as my most favorite song, but when I saw that video for the first time my first reaction was, that she is the most beautiful woman I have ever seen. Fourteen years and five years later I still have an amazingly huge crush on that woman.

The way I first got   Jagged Little Pill  is oddly simple. My mom and I were in the local K-Mart looking for something and I wandered off to look at video games, which is also where they put all the music. I abandoned why I was in that section and quickly ran around to find the Alanis album. To my surprise it was priced at nine $9.99, so I mulled it over in my head, do I ask. How do I ask. What's a good enough reason for me to have this. Walking slowly around the store for a while, after I found my mom I asked if I could get a new tape. She asked her standard how much question which I told her. And to my astoundment she said yes. When we got home I listened to the whole thing, twice. And I listened to it at least twice a day every day for months, I knew every word and music cue. It was an amazing find for me.

A few days after I got Jagged Little Pill my dad came home and for some reason or another it came up that I had gotten the album. He said they were talking about it on the radio that morning and that they said that there were some questionable lyrics  on it, and he demanded he read them. So I gave him just the case with the lyrics and kept the tape in my player, because I wasn't going to hand that over not knowing if I'd get it back at that point. My dad read the lyrics, and then gave me back the case and didn't really say anything after that about it. And that's the only time either of my parents wanted to look at any of words in the music I was listening to, though I did play Slipknot in a car ride with my mom once, because she was curious. She said they were very repetitive and I agreed.

A year or two later I got a better stereo system, one that played   Compact Disc's! The first CD I played on it was Nimrod by Green Day, I thought it was okay, I always liked Dookie and Insomniac better though.

The end third of the year 2000 was the beginning part of my senior year in high school, and in November I had my first real live experience with the local music scene. The first act was a gentleman with a guitar, he wasn't bad, but I also don't remember his name or any of his songs, shameful I know. After him, the reason why I was there played, the band  Three.  They played an amazing set, I was there with my friend Allison, who had seen them many times before me. Three ended their set, and said they'd be back for a second set. I didn't know at the time they were going to do that, but I was all for it. The third set of music of the night was just as awesome as the previous, and seemed to go on deep into the night. The show ended with Three performing a cover of Purple Rain, and both Allison and I were surprised.

At the time of the show I was seventeen years old, and it took place in a bar called C's Spot. In Kingston New York I was unable to enter the establishment to enjoy the show on my own, and I was sad because I was sure I wasn't going to be able to go. However, Allison knew the band and had told them I wanted to go, so they said the only way I'd be able to get in is if I worked the merch booth, so affectively both me and my friend were "with the band" that night. Three's first CD Paint by Number had just been released a few weeks prior, I'm sure the band would've made more money had it not been my first show, or if I had known what I was doing, but I think I did at least a decent job.

The rest of the school year I spent primarily listening to Paint by Number, it's a good album to listen to from start to finish and it seemed like every time I started it I went through the whole thing.

Until then I hadn't put much thought into listening to live music, which thinking about it now seems weird to me. It's something I actually enjoy doing, despite my total disinterest in crowds. I've been fortunate enough to see Three quite a few times since that November day in 2000, and a lot of good local music, bands like   By Land or Sea  and   Nightmares for a Week  come to mind, and are a real highlight to see after a hectic week at work, and maybe I might discover some new band seeing them play.

The discovery of new music is where I'm at now. I go about that slow, I mean I could go on the internet find something like a   Grooveshark  and find bands left and right, theoretically. I use more word of mouth recommendations and then giving them a listen when I get a chance. The latest music isn't the only thing I want to find, I like when I find something old, but new to me and it's even more fascinating when there's a crazy story behind the musician, like a Django Reinhardt,  or   Leadbelly  Searching is an endless quest for the next source of good music. Finding a new good song from any band, whether I know them or not is always a positive experience, but finding an entire album I can listen to from beginning to end and want to do it again makes me feel like I've found something really special.

   I was thinking the other day, there are a crazy amount of options if you wanted to listen to music. I mean how exactly do you listen to whatever your're into, like the iPod or other portable .mp3 player device. They're great for on the go listening while in the car or exercising it's also probably the most popular way in this era. But I was thinking about all the ways I've used, besides my iPod, like cd's, the cassette tape, vinyl records, and eight tracks. And okay, I'm not old enough to have actually used the eight track format in any real capacity, but I know what they are and at one point had a player for them. The cassette is what I used most growing up, I had a few in my collection I listened to constantly, and then cd's became popular when I had a way, which wasn't very good, but a way none the less to get some money, so I have a collection of cd's that is almost respectable. However, all that being said my favorite way to listen to music are vinyl records. I had barely a few as a small child, and even now I really don't have that many  and those that I do have have a special place. I'm not Rob from High Fidelity, though I would not mind having that deep of a collection at all.

     First things first, when you use the vinyl format to listen to music, you're most likely settling down to give whatever you put on an actual listen, because there aren't exactly portable players for these things. I'm not saying you can't do anything else, you can, but if you are going to take the time to bust out the record I think you're more likely to pay attention to the music. When was the last time you took the time to listen to you're favorite album and really took in the beat and followed the bass line, or followed the notes on the guitar solos, even followed the flow of lyrics on some good hip-hop. Most likely it's been awhile, maybe you should take the time and rediscover what made you like that particular album to begin with.

     Secondly, I like the physically bigger format. It makes for bigger artwork, and I love sitting there listening and studying the album cover, going over the songs on the back one by one so I can learn the names of them instead of just saying, "Well yeah that third track was awesome".  And on one of the records I do have, Alanis Morissette's Suppsed Former Infatuation Junkie, which is a double album, so not only do you have to flip the record over, but there are actually two of them for four sides of awesome, when you open it up on the left side is all the lyrics to all the songs in one place, not in a little booklet like you get in cd's. And just the records themselves have a good asthetic look to them. As colorful as the bottom of a cd might be as light reflects off the bottom, no matter how closely you look you can't really tell where one song stops and the other beginns. On a record however you can see all the bands representing the music, if you inspect closer the way the light makes the rings on the record have a shimmer to them, that's all the grooves imprinted on the media. You have a physical representation of the music, that's something you don't have on a majority of formats.

     Lastly, and most importantly of all, is the way they sound. Today's .mp3 and other digital formats leave music very clean, which is good for many things, but it also leaves something behind. That staticy hiss before the beginnging and all the slight imperfections really give the record a real soul like quality to them. It's the analog quality to the music that gives it that. Just putting on record in the turntable and dropping the needle on and watching it spin around in circles makes it feel special. If you bought a song off itunes or amazon and got something that sounded like that it';d be a little dissapointing, because you know that they couldv'e used a higher bitrate, or had a cleaner file, ubt the record has a definite charm to the quality.

     Listening to vinyl records is not for everyone. The person who needs clean sounding audio can be a real stickler for what makes a record a record, but those who choose to sit and listen to not just music, but the subtle undertones of the format itself know there in for something special every time they put on a record.