Away for a Week

Folks,

I'll be away this next week, at the World Boardgaming Championships, in Lancaster, Pa. You can follow my progress via my examiner.com column on boardgaming.

When I get back, we'll have a return to some communications/technology-based columns, as I give my final wrap-up RSS feed tutorial, and I'll also be reviewing a recent local viewing of the play Rent, with an analysis of some of the characters.

See ya in a week (or so).

Rush at Jones Beach - 7/24 (video-heavy)

This is a break away from my normal topics, obviously. I am not an avid concert-goer. I consider them, mostly, to be too expensive. In general, my criteria for attending a concert is that I have to know, pretty much, the artist's entire catalog of music -- when a song starts playing, I want to know it (even if I don't like it).

Essentially, that limits my potential concerts to Liz Phair, Rik Emmett, Maria McKee (although, I did see her in concert, and was quite non-plussed); and -- from my childhood -- bands like REO Speedwagon, Hall & Oates and Kiss (although, again, their *newer* stuff isn't really my taste). And, of course, Rush, whom I make a point to see every time they come to the area.

The past two years have been fairly groundbreaking for the band. They appeared on The Colbert Report, for their first American television appearance in more than 30 years. Their diehard fans were, effectively, the subject of the comedy film I Love You, Man.



And, this year, a documentary -- Beyond the Lighted Stage -- was released.



Beyond showcasing the band's impressive musical skills, the documentary also displayed the members' senses of humor; which was always apparent to fans and concert-goers; but non-existent to everyone else.

And, for younger fans, the band has regularly made appearances in the popular Guitar Hero/Rock Band series. In fact, the band's magnum opus, 2112, will be featured in the upcoming Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock game. Clocking in at more than 20 minutes, this will introduce an album that is nearly 40 years old to an entirely new group of fans.

Despite a steady fan base and consistently strong record sales (only The Beatles and The Rolling Stones had more consecutive gold/platinum album releases), and their regularly sold-out concerts, the band has notoriously been dismissed by critics. In 1981, Rush was nominated for its first Grammy award (for best instrumental performance) and the iconic YYZ fell short (to The Police's "Behind my Camel" ... really?). This was the first of six nominations the band received; never winning.



The fact that the band has *still* not been inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is now so laughable that it practically renders the Hall of Fame irrelevant (again, seriously, Depeche Mode has been inducted?)

On its last tour, the band led off its, arguably, most famous song, Tom Sawyer, with a comical film from the South Park team.



This year's tour would be no different. Humor abounded, as the band celebrated the pending 30 year anniversary of its landmark album Moving Pictures. So, on an incredibly hot and muggy Saturday evening, I ventured to a jam-packed Nikon Theater at Jones Beach (one of America's Top 10 outdoor venues), to see Rush for, probably, the 10th time?

As in year's past, the show began with a video - longer than previous ones - that served to introduce the respective songs while showcasing the sense of humor. One particularly cool touch to this year's tour, was the "Time Machine" (for which the tour was named), which was present throughout much of the show. As songs were played, the "time machine" would set to the year of release, providing those of us longtime fans in the audience with a little more depressing news as to our age...



The first set breezed right through - about an hour, in total. The setlist:

1. The Spirit of Radio
2. Time Stand Still (a shock to see it included in the setlist, as I wouldn't have thought this would really ever be played live, but a happy shock)
3. Presto (another shock, as this was my favorite song from the Presto album, but it was definitely overlooked in favor of the more rock-oriented Show Don't Tell)
4. Stick It Out (in every Rush show, there's a period of time where I simply don't care for the songs being played -- Stick it Out is one of those songs, and I knew the next few songs would probably be songs I didnt' enjoy much -- I wasn't wrong)
5. Working Them Angels (from their most recent album -- I wasn't a fan of this song (although, I wish I had been ... I *wanted* to like it more), but I have my theory on why this is (later).
6. Leave That Thing Alone (instrumental, another of the Grammy-nominated songs)
7. Faithless (from Snakes and Arrows - their last album - more on this later)
8. I Was Brought Up To Believe (one of their two newer songs, from a yet-to-be-released album, and given the texting-generation-friendly title "BU2B")
9. Freewill (a return to the iconic songs of Rush's past; from here on, the rest of the show had precious little 'fodder")
10. Marathon (from the band's synth-heavy phase, that - at the time - raised the ire of some diehard fans, who resented the move away from guitar-oriented rock).
11. Subdivisions (probably my favorite song by the band, and a great way to end the first set).

The second set included the entire Moving Pictures album, for the first time (probably, since the album's release). Again, a humorous video led off the set - "The Real History of Rush", followed in succession by the band's seven songs from the album:

1. Tom Sawyer
2. Red Barchetta
3. YYZ
4. Limelight
5. The Camera Eye (seeing this song, alone, was worth the price of admission - in fact, while the first four songs are all concert staples, the second side of the album (the next three songs) are all concert rarities.
6. Witch Hunt
7. Vital Signs
8. Caravan (the second of the two "new" songs Rush has released -- this one, musically, is pretty great; the vocal and melody line are weaker (again, more on this later))
9. Drum Solo (there's always a drum solo at a Rush show)
   
   
   
10. Guitar Solo
11. Closer to the Heart (which featured a modified ending -- the first time I've seen Rush manipulate a song's "sound" in concert).
12. 2112: Priests of the Temples of Syrinx
13. Far Cry (from the Snakes and Arrows album -- and, while I love the song, it was an odd choice to end the set with this song).

At this point, the standard, "oh, we have to keep clapping so they do their encore" show began; thankfully, it didn't last long, and they emerged to lay their third instrumental of the evening - La Villa Strangiato, albeit with a "polka-esque" beginning; and finished with Working Man, an anthemic tune, again, with a reggae-inspired beginning.



And, the show concluded with yet another great video -- this time featuring Paul Rudd and Jason Segel (the two stars of the afore-mentioned "I Love You Man" movie. There were some funny moments in the finale video; but I suspect it might have hit a little too close to home for some more "zealous" fans.



So, what were my thoughts?

Overall, it was a great concert - but, I've really never been to a Rush concert that wasn't at least very good (and that was only because the acoustics were awful at one show).

That being said, I've long wished that, like other bands, Rush might have alternating set lists. Pearl Jam, from what I can tell, does that -- each show is unique and different; whereas Rush plays the exact same show, each date on the tour (which also makes me question why people see the show more than once in a year....)

Additionally, I haven't been as impressed with the newer material. I know bands tour to support their newest album; but - honestly - when the band's catalog is as deep as Rush's, I'd rather hear the vintage material (even if it's a deep track from the CD).

I don't know why I haven't loved the newer material - part of it is the standard has been set rather high. From 1977-1982/3-ish, Rush put out some amazing music that still stands the test of time; but as I listened to Freewill, Tom Sawyer, Limelight, even Subdivisions, I can't see anything new that really compares to it. Even a song like Far Cry - a great song - is still a pale comparison to the classic material. Why might that be? Well, certainly, the lyrics have moved from "fantasy-based" to "reality-based" on some levels; there's definitely less mysticism in the lyrics.

Musically, the band definitely still has its chops; but the complexity has taken a step back. Whereas earlier music featured changing time signatures and key signatures, possibly for no reason other than "because it could" (leading critics to label the band as self-indulgent), now, the music is far more straightforward.

Even still, the melodies of songs like "Caravan" songs like "One Little Victory" from a few albums ago, don't quite measure up. It's possible there's a feeling from the band to continue to show they *can* still write strong rock songs like they did in their heyday (remember, after the Moving Pictures album, the band moved to more of a synth-heavy sound, and got push-back from the fans). It's possible there's an emphasis on writing guitar-heavy riffs.

Or, maybe, bands just have periods of inspiration, and they spend the rest of their careers trying to measure up to their period of greatness. And, that's not necessarily a knock on any band (least of all Rush) -- many bands would kill to be able to write and play music even as well as non-'great' Rush.

The Game's the Thing

About a week ago, I received a phone call from a professor at C.W. Post University, who had found my website online. She was teaching a course on game design this summer as part of a summer game course initiative at the college. She asked if I would guest lecture.

So, accompanied with another member of my boardgaming group, we headed off to C.W. Post today to teach 12 high school/college students about boardgames and design.

It was really refreshing -- the students were definitely interested in learning (and trying) some of the new games they'd never heard of. We taught them two new games, had a brief discussion on the history of games (and modern games) and spoke with a few of the students about their final projects (designing a game).

I don't regret not pursuing a career in teaching -- today's experience didn't change that at all. But, it did reaffirm how much I enjoy teaching - even in a corporate setting. One of my favorite aspects of my previous career was being a trusted advisor/source for a company. In fact, when I explain my role, I normally focus on how a large part of my role was helping others become better communicators (both from a writing and strategic standpoint).

For more details about my class today, check out my board game examiner blog on examiner.com.

The Creative Process (Can it be forced?)

While out of work, a friend of mine and I began thinking about doing some collaborative writing. In many ways, we complement each other extremely well -- I'm more linear and plot/character-driven; and he's an incredible wordsmith (who can be prone to spending too much time indulging himself in his words). So, those two personalities would work well together.

We've done some brief talking about plot and characters -- not too much, though; and we've even talked about some ways to market the work, should it ever get finished.

Here's the problem. We're really having a hard time getting started. In no uncertain terms, that's the issue facing us. And, when we really *really* thought about it last week, I think I uncovered it.

We don't have a driving need to tell a story.

Many/most successful writers, from what I've read, have said that, when they wrote their book, they "simply had to tell their story." They couldn't *not* tell it. It had to be written.

I'd always dismissed that as semi-pompous drivel. After all, I've spent my career as a writer (in one form or another). I was trained to turn out copy in quick fashion, regardless of my interest in the subject (and, trust me, when I started my career, as an editor of magazines on shallow draft commercial maritime, woodworking and janitorial product distribution, there wasn't a whole lot of interest in the subject). So, why would it be so difficult to write something equally compelling/entertaining as a work of fiction.

But, yet, when we sit down to start writing, it's way too difficult to really get a foothold. We make a little headway and then we get bogged down in details. It's definitely not fun.

I can't decide if writing fiction really does require a muse, per se; or, does it require a clear head (something I admittedly don't have now). Has anyone actually churned out "creative" work, even when you didn't feel like it?

Getting Kicked While You're Down

So, I was sending out resumes last week, and came across this job. It's hard to actually identify what's most disturbing about it.

• It could be the fact that the position will need to write/rewrite about 10 articles a day (contrary to belief, writing isn't something that can be done that quickly ... at least, not good writing). And, while the articles are short (200-400 words), they're not *that* short.
  
• It could be the fact that the position will need to write/rewrite 5 articles per hour. That's 12 minutes per article. That's really, really fast.
  
• It could be the fact that the pay is $2.50-$3.00 per hour (or less than one-half the federal/state-mandated minimum wage).
  
• Or, it could be the final "Note" section:
  EXCELLENT WRITING SKILL IS A MUST!
  PLEASE DON'T APPLY IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE.

It's hard to determine which aspect of the posting is most insulting to writers, and, this is fairly common in the workplace. Writing is the one skill *everyone* believes they have. It would never occur to me to march into a CFO's office and say, "I was doing some thinking, and I may have a better way for us to track our profits and losses this year." Yet, nearly every writer has been similarly approached with a "suggestion" of how his/her writing can be improved. And, that leads to advertisements like the above ... $3 an hour jobs to churn out 5 articles an hour.

I mean, I still applied, don't get me wrong ... I'm just disturbed by it! (and, yes, I'm kidding about applying...)

My new writing position (not really) and social media wishlist

So, I started actually writing for "pay" -- if you can call it that. I signed up on examiner.com as a local "board game" examiner, which pays the princely sum of $1 per article (plus additional monies, as determined by traffic).

Unlike this blog, which has really evolved (or devolved, depending on your interests!) into more of a professional thinkbank for me, the examiner piece allows me to write about a hobby of mine, and keeps my skills up. Plus, it's fun being an ambassador for - what I consider to be - a great pastime. Unlike some of the boardgaming-focused sites, which are really geared towards the experienced player, this column will attempt to bring these games to the public's awareness.

You can access (and subscribe to) my column here. Right now, there's only one story up, but I'll try and get 2-3 up each week (more often than not, it'll be '2'). But, almost all of them will be shorter than what I typically write here!

The other thing I've been working on is figuring out the best way to secure emails in an RSS feed. For those who've been reading this column, you know that I'm a huge fan of the use of RSS feeds. I find email to be cumbersome and inefficient. Nevertheless, there are still some sites that *insist* on using email to communicate -- most notably, YahooGroups (understandable, as Yahoo, in general, is years behind the rest of the world) and - shockingly - Linked In.

I've gone through so many attempts to figure out ways to do it -- using blogger.com, using xfruits.com -- my latest attempt used posterous.com, but even that has fallen short (although, there's still a possibility of that working -- next week will tell).

So, here's my WISHLIST of social media/technology tools, that would make my life significantly easier:

1. An easy way to convert email to RSS feeds that stays private. I want to be able to get the full text of the message in the RSS reader. Basically - a dream would be to combine posterous.com -- which allows you to subscribe to a private RSS feed, with blogger.com or wordpress.com -- which allows ANY email address to post to the blog (whereas, posterous only allows approved/confirmed email addresses to post).
   
   This makes for a circuitous snafu. I receive emails at gmail.com, and auto-forward to the blog; but since I'm unable to confirm email addresses from yahoogroups or linkedin, and the auto-forward *retains* the original sending email address, the posts never arrive at posterous.
   
   Admittedly, this is probably over the head of most people; but if it's not - there will be MUCH gratitude for assistance in fixing this issue.
   
2. Nested folders in google reader -- isn't it about time, already?

Starting next week, I'll be tackling some new topics that still remain professional in origin; but aren't completely communications-related. You'll have to stay tuned, to see!