Daft Punk and Wagner May Have More In Common Than You'd Think

I love finding redeeming qualities in popular music. Most of it is such trash, that I am extremely encouraged when I find what I consider to be a great pop song. Recently I stumbled across one, completely not expecting it. Over winter break, I found myself driving in my car, alone, listening to the Daft Punk that I added to my iPod. I know Daft Punk is a pretty popular group, definitely trendy, and I respect their music. I think it takes a lot of talent to do what they do. But I always thought of it as fairly mindless dance music. People aren't really listening to the music for meaning; it functions more as background music.


However, then Digital Love came on. At first I thought, "ok, this is a nice little love song," but as the song progressed, I found myself becoming more and more upset by it. The lyrics start out fairly happy as the narrator describes a romance he has in a dream. But, "before I knew it, the dream was all gone." He then goes on to sing about how he wants to make the dream come true. Sad, but not exactly heartbreaking. It's not like Daft Punk is the first group to ever write a sad love song. As an amateur singer/songwriter, I can tell you, I've written a number of sad love songs, and none of them are all that powerful. As the song continued, I found myself very captivated by it. It left me feeling very tense. Before I break down why I found the song to be so powerful, listen to the song for yourself.





Good stuff. In the past week or two, I've asked a number of people if they've heard the song, and if so, what they thought about it. A number of people have said they like the tune, though they couldn't explain why, and I even got one person who said it's fairly generic and mediocre. So I, with the help of a couple of my roommates, decided to analyze the song and break down why it left me feeling the way it did from a musical standpoint.


After listening to it again, in depth, I realized something that I couldn't believe I hadn't noticed before. The main theme never resolves to the I chord! To the non-musicians, what this means it that it never goes to the chord that you, as a listener, want it to. Pretty much every simple tune you can think of ends on the tonic (I chord). Of course never resolving to the tonic is going to leave the listener very tense! Listening to a 5 minute song and never getting the resolution that your ear is waiting for, leaves you very anxious.


So, why Wagner? Richard Wagner (pronounced vog-ner) was a 19th century German composer who is widely considered to be one of the greatest composers of the Romantic era. I bring him up because he uses a similar, virtually the same, technique in his 1865 opera Tristan und Isolde. It is hailed as one of the greatest operas ever written and according to Wikipedia, "Many see Tristan as the beginning of the move away from conventional harmony and tonality and consider that it lays the groundwork for the direction of classical musical in the 20th century." In other words, the harmony was really groundbreaking and really weird. Coming from someone who took a course on 20th Century Classical Music, I can tell you that it got pretty out there in the 20th century.


What makes Tristan so strange/powerful? For almost the entire duration of the opera, just under 5 hours, it doesn't resolve to the I chord! At the climax of the piece, the very end, it finally resolves to the I chord, and it is said to be an unbelievably powerful experience. Just imagine as a listener, there's something that you want so badly, and are repeatedly being denied it. It leaves you tense and frustrated. And after almost five hours, you are finally rewarded with a triumphant I chord. It's extremely powerful.


Digital Love never resolves to the I chord. In fact, the way the song begins and ends is also brilliant. It opens with a synth suspended chord slowly fading in; not exactly dissonant, but unresolved. The song ends with the same synth chord. In essence, the symmetry of the identical beginning and end shows that the song hasn't really gone anywhere. The listener has ended up right back where they started. And this fits in perfectly with the theme of the song: an experience that turned out to be a dream and unreal. Nothing actually happened.


There are so many other great qualities about the song, as well. The "why don't you play the game?" vocal line, which is then mimiced by the synthesizer, is haunting. The whole song has a dreamlike quality to it too, which is a credit to the synth sounds being used, especially the synthesized vocals. But the lack of resolution is brilliant. It perfectly captures the emotion of the song.


So the next time you're listening to a popular song, don't be so quick to write it off as mindless. The techniques of great classical composers pop up every now and then in today's popular music. I knew that Daft Punk had talent just from listening to their live recordings. But they wildly exceeded my expectations with Digital Love. Every once in a while, a great popular song just may take you by surprise.

Why College Football Refs May Have a Not-So-Secret Agenda

After watching a lot of college football this year, and complaining about a lot of bad calls, I began to notice a trend. The big teams were not losing close games in conference. Just seeing the results on paper, a casual fan may think, "that makes sense, the best teams know how to win the close games." Sure they do, especially with the help of the officials. At this point, this is no more than a theory, but I'm just letting you know. If this does come out as the truth down the road, you can say you heard it here first.

Here's my theory: the referees are helping teams (especially undefeated teams) win against smaller in-conference opponents. Here's why: a conference has a lot to gain by having an elite team. As much as I hate to admit it as an ACC fan, parity is not good for a conference. If a conference sends a team to the national championship game, or multiple BCS games, as the Big 10 and SEC did (remember Big 10), they make a lot more revenue for the big games. And with revenue sharing, the conference splits up this cash. Though slightly outdated, here's a good article that explains it all (I also find it interesting that it comes from Iowa, keep that in mind, too). Here's a quote from Iowa athletic director at the time, Bob Bowlsby, taken from the article that explains it well, "A second Big Ten team involved in a Bowl Championship Series game provides a significant boost to the conference and the member institutions in several ways including additional national recognition of the second team in particular and the league as a whole as a result of the media attention provided by the BCS and the bowl game." Extremely redundant, yes, but the quote is important.

For games in which two teams from the same conference play each other, the game is officiated by conference referees. In short, the refs are employed by the conference, itself. So, if there is a result of that game that is clearly beneficial to the that conference, what is to stop those officials from doing their best to make sure that result happens? Granted, if it's completely obvious, it's going to raise some red flags with the NCAA, but there is nothing preventing officials from making some important, questionable calls that can swing a close game.

The reason why I developed this theory came from watching the Iowa Hawkeyes play during their undefeated run, specifically their Oct. 31 win against Indiana. Though the 42-24 final score looks like a comfortable win, it was anything but for the Hawkeyes. QB Ricky Stanzi threw 5 INTs on the day, 4 in the 3rd quarter, and Iowa trailed by 14 in that same 3rd quarter. Yet, thanks to some very questionable officiating, Iowa cruised along the undefeated road into November. It was at this play specifically, that I began to sense something fishy was going on. A clear Indiana touchdown, one that would have given them a 2 TD lead late in the 3rd, is overturned. Iowa's undefeated run came to an end the next week against Northwestern in a game in which Stanzi was injured early on and Iowa turned the ball over 4 times. Also, the Hawkeyes didn't score any points after Stanzi left in the 2nd quarter; they didn't do enough to win, even with the assistence of referees.

Back at the beginning of the season, Michigan received a gift win over Notre Dame thanks to Big 10 officials. Keep in mind, this game took place in early September, when Michigan fans were thinking that Tate Forcier was the best thing since sliced bread and was going to lead them back to the promised land. Michigan back on top again; the Big 10 must dream about it every night. Also, this is a Big 10 team against a non-Big 10 team, officiated by Big 10 refs. Don't worry, they're definitely going to be impartial. As much as I love to see an irate Charlie Weis on the sidelines, he had some critical comments of the Big 10 refs that I had to agree with.

I'm not accusing Iowa of any wrongdoing, I just think they may have been the benificiaries of a conference desperately seeking redemption in the bowl season with something to prove. The Big 10 did go on to prove a lot of people wrong and have a tremendous bowl season, winning both of their BCS games.

But I think this may be a problem that could be a lot more common in college football than we know about. The SEC got its dream scenario in a conference championship game featuring undefeateds Alabama and Florida. Who's to say that the SEC officials didn't give them some breaks during their seasons, paving the way toward this matchup (which did lead to the 2 teams both making, and winning, BCS bowls)? I'm not saying it happened, but it certainly could have, especially in Alabama's close win over Tennessee and Florida's over Vanderbilt.

However, this theory contrasts greatly with the blatant cheating by the officials in Georgia Tech's win over Virginia Tech. VaTech was undefeated and the #4 team in the nation at the time when the officials picked up a ball that was spotted short of the first down marker, moved it forward, and awarded Georgia Tech the first down (just click on the link to watch the clip). Watching that game, I was dumbfounded. I still am, especially since it goes completely against my theory. Maybe, like everything else that happens in ACC football, it just doesn't make sense.

This may be just a theory, but there is nothing preventing my theory from happening. If it is beneficial to a conference if one team wins a certain game, and the conference employs the refs calling the game, the conference is going to tell the refs to give the breaks to the team they want to win. The only thing keeping this theory from happening is ethics, and as we all learned from the financial disasters of the past decade (take Enron and ponzi schemes), ethics is not an effective enforcer of the rules. Conferences referees are not impartial. Just letting you know, you heard it here first.

Why Pete Carroll Will Have More Success in the NFL This Time Around

Pete Carroll's appointment as the new head coach of the Seattle Seahawks took many avid NFL and NCAA football fans, myself included, by surprise. Carroll seemed to be the perfect fit for the USC head coaching job, and it seemed to be the perfect fit for him as well. Carroll (pictured right, microphone brought to you by bing.com) seemed like a guy who was happy coaching at the college level. There are certain guys who are great college coaches. For example, Steve Spurrier: great coach of the Florida Gators. His tenure with the Washington Redskins was pretty forgettable, which might actually be considered a good thing for a franchise that is looking to forget anything that has happened in the last decade. Spurrier led the 'Skins to a 12-20 record over 2 seasons before resigning and eventually accepting a job back in the good ole' SEC with South Carolina. Some guys seem like they're destined to coach college ball forever and Carroll seemed like one of those guys.

Plus, let's not forget that Carroll did try his luck in the NFL. Unlike Mark McGwire, I am here to talk about the past. I'm guessing those of you who don't remember Carroll in the NFL are not fans of the Jets or Patriots. But I bet more of you do remember the Dan Marino "fake spike" play against the Jets. The Jets were 6-5 going into the game, they were 6-6 after it and 6-10 at the end of the season. Their head coach was, you guessed it, Pete Carroll, and he then was, you got it again, fired at the end of the season. After a couple years as the defensive coordinator in San Francisco, Carroll was hired to succeed Bill Parcells (have you heard of him?) as head coach of the Patriots. Needless to say, Carroll could not fill the Big Tuna's big shoes and was let go after three seasons. His replacement, some other no-name coach: Bill Belichick.

Now, I've always liked Pete Carroll. The guy has a youthful enthusiasm that's rare in big time football coaches. (Did anyone see Nick Saban crack a smile even once after winning the National Championship?) Carroll always seems to be having fun on the sidelines. He and his players always seem to have great relationships; he looks like a kid himself on the sideline. Did you know that he's 58 years old? 58. In a couple years, Carroll could replace Wilford Brimley as the spokesperson for Liberty Medical and I'm sure he'd tell us all about how we can get our "diabeetus testing supplies" with a smile on his face. I would gladly accept a 30 second interruption from The Price Is Right to listen to Pete Carroll talk to me about Liberty Medical.
Now the evidence is on the table. But I'm going to let you know why I think the NFL is going to be much kinder to Pete Carroll this time around.

1. Experience at USC - Carroll did some big things at USC. The Trojans were arguably the team of the decade, winning 2 National Titles and going to 7 straight BCS bowl games. They did this all running a pro style offense. This was no Georgia Tech triple option. There's a reason why the USC quarterback is a high draft pick almost every year (Palmer, Leinart, Sanchez). It's like dating. Pete had some hot girlfirends back in the day, in the Jets and Pats, but he made some mistakes and they didn't work out. Now, after hanging out at bars and internet dating sites, Pete found a serious partner in USC. He became a more mature man with USC, learned from his mistakes, and is now ready to move on. Carroll's 9 years at USC have made him more prepared to run a professional team than he was back when he ran the Jets and Patriots.

2. He's a west coast guy - No one ever said New York and New England are easy places to coach. Carroll was born and raised in San Francisco, went to school at Pacific and has had his best years on the west coast. I understand that Seattle is different from SoCal (a simple look outside could tell you that), but not nearly as different as New York or Boston. Carroll will definitely be more comfortable in Seattle than he was in his previous NFL run. I'm struggling to support this reason; much like when a scout says that a player has "intangibles." Regardless, I see the town as a good fit.

3. NFC West - The Seahawks are in maybe the weakest division in the NFL. You get to play the Rams, the worst team in the league, twice. The other two teams in the division are San Fran (a team that's on the way up but still mediocre) and Arizona (a good playoff team but rarely too scary in the regular season, especially with the possible retirement of Warner). At this point, the NFC West is almost like if the SEC was a college hockey conference. Though I don't see Seattle winning the division, they have a chance to win against all three of these teams.

4. Expectations - The Seahawks are a struggling franchise right now. They are in no hurry to return to the Super Bowl. As much as I want to support Boston College's own Matt Hasselbeck, the guy hasn't been getting it done in Seattle. Neither has wide-out TJ Houshmanzadeh (by the way, thanks for the tip that this was going to be your "break-out" season, Housh. 6th round fantasy pick wasted on you, you bum). Plus, since Shaun Alexander went from MVP to out of the league seemingly overnight, the Seahawks haven't found a running back they can depend on. This may sound like Carroll doesn't have the tools for success, but I argue that it is a positive because people are not expecting success in the short term.

At first, I was taken aback by Carroll's decision to coach at Seattle. I thought, he gave the NFL a shot and it didn't work out, why try it again? Now, I'm thinking that this could be a great move for Pete Carroll. I'm not saying that the Seahawks are going to turn it around and start winning games, but I do think that the tools are in place and Carroll has a much greater chance for success in the NFL this time around.

Things I Came To Love and Hate in 2009

Music:

John Legend - This is an easy one for me. John Legend was my musical obsession for 2009. I consider this guy to be the next great hope for popular music. He just puts together a perfect blend of hip-hop, R&B, soul, funk, and even rap on a couple songs. There’s a reason why so many big time rappers keep coming to John Legend to collaborate. I also got to see him live in ’09 and he didn’t disappoint. Please John Legend, keep making more great music in the next decade.

Honorable mention: Jay-Z, Brecker Brothers

Lady Gaga - I can’t say I hated too many musical artists this past year but I guess if I had to pick one it would be Lady Gaga. Unfortunately I think Lady Gaga is brilliant. She knows exactly what the music industry wants and she gives it to all of us. She is a fairly talented musician but she knows that what the majority wants to hear is crap. So she turns out garbage but couples it with weird outfits and nonsensical music videos so people think it’s “artistic.” Her videos have nothing to do with the content of the songs and they are weird for the sake of being weird. She goes out and plays a freak at the VMAs just to turn heads. But it works, and this may be what bothers me the most.

Honorable mention: System of a Down

Television:

The Office – I don’t watch too many current TV shows. I rely mostly on reruns (which is why I consider TBS replacing Seinfeld with My Name Is Earl to be one of the dumbest moves of the year). But, The Office may be my one exception. This show is hilarious. The characters are brilliant, all so different. No one character makes the show. Great cast, great writing, great show.

Honorable mention: 30 Rock, The Herd (I know it’s a radio show but I watch it on TV and it’s too good to omit)

Robot Chicken – Apologies to Mike Cote, but I have to do this. I have been forced into watching this show for months and have cracked a smile maybe once, and it was during the Star Wars episode (I’m a sucker for Admiral Ackbar “It’s a Trap” jokes). I become physically uncomfortable watching this show, it’s that bad. Let’s have action figures act as characters from pop culture, but then they’ll swear and kill each other in graphic ways. Hilarious? The fact that people watch this show blows my mind.

Honorable mention: Tyler Perry’s House of Payne, Meet the Browns (seriously…do people watch those shows?)

Video Games:

Mario Kart Wii – Get four guys together, a game of Mario Kart and you have a great night. I said once between races, “this really may be the best game ever made.” I stand by that. When you have four guys sitting around a screen and screaming vulgarities at each other frantically, that is a great game. I consider winning a race at Rainbow Road to be one of the greatest achievements of my life. The intensity is phenomenal and it’s also so much fun.

Honorable mention: Madden 10, Winning Eleven

NHL 10 – The problem with NHL 10, is that I really do love it. But I hate playing it, because if you lose, you want to go jump off a bridge. It’s one of those games where you really don’t want to play, but you have to. Also, it’s extremely unrealistic. Spoiler alert: the only way to score is by feeding a one-timer to the guy in the slot. The CPU defender will always mysteriously move away from the attacker in the slot. Plus, you can’t trip someone from in front of them. But this game is still too addictive.

Film:

The Jerk – Before ’09, I had never seen this movie and after seeing it once it became one of my all-time favorites. I think I consistently laughed throughout the whole movie. Steve Martin is unreal hilarious. Shithead the dog is also phenomenal. I love Navin’s letters home; they always end with something completely ridiculous. Like “PS: Patty promised me a blow job next week” or “I have to go now as someone is staring at me through binoculars.”

Honorable mention: Just Friends (it may be a chick flick but what a great movie)

Gangs of New York – I didn’t see any movies that I hated this year so I figured I’d go back to an old favorite. This movie sucked and I’m not gonna be made to think otherwise. Seriously, if you’re gonna speak with an Irish accent, at least keep it up for the whole movie.

Sports:

Kyle Orton – Those of you who know me know that I’ve been a Kyle Orton fan since his days at Purdue. But I was always kind of joking when I said how great he was. Now I’m serious, I think he’s great. His year with the Broncos, a team expected to be terrible, has proved that he is a valuable QB. The guy just wins games.

Honorable mention: Alexandre Pato, Mark Herzlich, 2009 Barcelona FC

2009 New York Yankees – Probably my most hated team since the 2003 Yankees and 2000 Baltimore Ravens. The entire postseason you just knew that the Yankees were going to win it all, but you had to sit and endure it. It was a painful experience, thankfully now it’s over.

Honorable mention: Brett Favre, Wade Redden, Michael Rosival, Matt Gilroy, Didier Drogba

That’s it, my 2009 in review. Let me know if I missed anything or if you disagree with what I’ve said (but seriously, no one is going to convince me that Robot Chicken or Gangs of New York are good).