Memorable Concert Moments: Lollapalooza 1991 and 1992

So the 2008 edition of Lollapalooza was this past weekend, and the show got more buzz than I can remember hearing about it in years. Perry Farrell's brainchild has definitely taken a long, strange trip since its 1991 inception. And my own first couple of attempts to attend met with varying degrees of success.

When the inaugural lineup was put together I was flabbergasted. Some of my favorite acts were part of that initial tour -- Jane's Addiction, Siouxsie & the Banshees, Living Colour, Nine Inch Nails, Ice-T & Body Count and Violent Femmes in particular. The closest the festival was scheduled to be was in New Jersey three days before my wedding.

Perfect timing, right? Well, not to Danelle. Try as I might, I could not convince her that going to the show would have no effect on our impending nuptials. She was afraid I'd get beat up, or we'd have relatives in town that it would be rude for me to ditch, or I shouldn't take another day off of work right before our honeymoon or any number of a zillion other nightmare scenarios. There was no talking her out of it -- I wasn't going.

Of the two events I'm certainly glad I chose our wedding over the concert. She did make it up to me by performing homemade karaoke versions of a couple of Living Colour songs for me on our first anniversary.

The next year we moved to Dallas, and the tour was back and coming to town. The year two lineup was arguably even better than the first, with Red Hot Chili Peppers, Ministry, Ice Cube, Soundgarden, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Pearl Jam and Lush all on the main stage. I had no plans to get married again so my there were no apparent conflicts. I bought my ticket right when they went on sale and eagerly counted the days until I could wash away the last remnants of the previous year's disappointment.

Then as the glorious day approached, a conflict arose. Danelle's grandmother was having her 80th birthday party the same day.

I truly felt Lollapacursed. But I'd already bought the ticket, and we had dinner with Danelle's grandmother regularly. So I convinced myself that skipping the party for the concert was no big deal. Besides, Danelle's dear sweet Mamaw would completely understand, right?

I explained the situation to her, and her dear, sweet words still echo in my head to this day.

"That's all right, hon. I only want people there who want to be there."

Stunned doesn't even begin to describe my reaction. I'm not even sure what I said in reply, if anything. What reply is there to that? That's light years beyond "Do these jeans make me look fat?" on the no-win scale and right up there with "Do you still have a drinking problem?" There's no way out. Game over.

I went to the concert and had a great time, and I don't think there was any lingering ill will between Mamaw and I through her passing a few years later. I went to the next two Lollapaloozas, too, before losing interest. But not before enjoying the likes of Smashing Pumpkins, Beastie Boys, Arrested Development, Green Day and Rage Against the Machine on the main stage. The second stage also introduced me to great acts like Boo-Yaa T.R.I.B.E, The Boo Radleys, The Pharcyde and Shonen Knife.

But the most unforgettable Lollapalooza performance for me by far came from Danelle's Mamaw. If I ever get invited to someone's 80th birthday party again, I'm pretty sure I'll make sure to be there.

UPDATE: Danelle and Nana both informed that Mamaw never actually got over my snub, and continued to bring it up long after the fact. Sorry, Mamaw. :(

Read the Whole Post, And I Might Let You Clap the Erasers

The junction of the writer/editor in me and the obsessive-compulsive in me is not a pleasant place.

I understand that language evolves. I believe it should or it loses its ability to accurately reflect the current culture. But I still can't help getting annoyed by misuses and abuses, especially ones that seem to be products of laziness or ignorance and not legitimate attempts to communicate something for which the right word truly doesn't exist.

With that somewhat overbearing intro behind us, here are four that have particularly grated on me:

1. Untracked.
This mainly comes up in sports, as in when a team is struggling to score points the announcer says that its offense "needs to get untracked." At first I thought I wasn't hearing correctly and they were saying "on track." I was familiar with the expression that something was "off track." Then I started seeing it in print and realized it was intentional, but I still have no idea what it means. I think it had to have come about from people hearing "on track" and thinking they heard "untracked" and just running with it without really thinking it through, in Purple Haze fashion. Shouldn't "tracked" have a definition that meant something bad for "untracked" to mean something good? I've never heard one.

2. Nother.
As in "a whole 'nother" something -- story, issue or whatever. This one probably doesn't even count any more, since it shows up in most dictionaries. I think that's a case of the linguistic guardians throwing up their collective hands as much as anything and crying "Uncle!" over the realization that it simply wasn't going to go away. Some of them cling to a shred of traditional respect and use words like "misdivision" or "informal" in the definition. But if it was a REAL concept, couldn't you have other divisions of nothers besides just whole ones? Have you ever seen a half nother or a quarter nother? I guess nothers always travel with wholes in the same way that kaboodles are always found with kits.

3. Judgement.
The British spelling of a word that Noah Webster decided long ago Americans should technically spell "judgment." I've seen the British version in decidedly un-British places, like the TV show Iron Chef and the publication Funny Times, which describes itself as "America's ad-free cartoon and humor newspaper." I suppose if someone wants to act British, that's fine. It worked for Ministry for a while. I just hope they also use colour, centre, defence and so on.

4. Everyday.
An adjective that I often see used in place of a two-word adjective/noun combo, as in "open everyday" instead of "open every day." I'm all in favor of conservation, but I didn't know there was a shortage of spaces in the world that needed to be addressed. I'll have to try harder to do my part nexttime.

Well, I feel a little better for having given voice to my inner middle-school English teacher. Part of me still feels like I should ask you all to write "I will not use a pronoun without an antecedent noun" 100 times, but I'll resist the urge.

Class dismissed!

I Have Problems With Authority

Technorati is a terrific resource. I much prefer it to any other tool for finding individual posts and even blogs about specific topics.

That said, I'm really not a big fan of their "Authority" metric for a number of reasons.

1. It's based solely on how many other blogs link to you, not how may incoming links you have from all sources. This seems like the same kind of close-mindedness that many bloggers decry in the traditional media, only in reverse. Bloggers hate when the media dismiss anything having to do with the blogosphere out of hand as inherently less relevant than something one of their own comes up with. Why then would Technorati do essentially the same thing? Is a link from one of my sports-related posts really a more valid measure of how "popular" (Technorati's word) another blog is than a reference on, say, ESPN.com? It smells sort of like high school cliqueishness -- the opinion of anyone in another group doesn't matter as much as the opinion of people in MY group. The risk of that sort of thinking is that you eventually lose sight of the complete picture when you consistently exclude outside views, and end up with a skewed sense of self-importance. Technorati Authority fosters that among bloggers.

2. Despite this supposed myopic focus on blogs, Technorati doesn't seem to actually include ALL blogs. I'm not exactly sure what their definition of a blog is. I've usually considered it to require things like a personal voice (or voices) rather than an institutional one, tag-based archiving and the ability for readers to both subscribe and post comments. That could be why things like the "blog light" functionality we added to BroncosCountry.com last year doesn't seem to qualify. It has commenting, but not subscription or archiving. What, then, about something like Associated Content? They call their contributors "content producers" rather than bloggers, but they sure walk like ducks. So for whatever the reason, Technorati doesn't actually include the input of everyone they claim to in their rankings. I guess there's someone in every clique who nobody actually listens to.

3. Technorati only counts a link from any individual blog to your overall Authority once in a six-month period. I think I understand the motivation -- you want to prevent anyone from artificially cranking up their Authority by having a couple of their buddies with blogs "stuff the ballot box" on their behalf. But once every six months seems a little excessive and basic. I'd think a slightly more complex algorithm that factored in both time and frequency on a sliding scale would be an improvement. So the first link from a particular blog earns full credit, a second link from that same blog a day later is worth very little, a third link three months later is worth somewhere in between and so on. Someone geekier than me could figure out the specifics, but the premise seems sound.

4. Assuming this whole thing is automated, what the heck takes them so long to make their updates? For something that measures one of the trendiest tools on the interweb, it certainly doesn't move at the speed you'd expect. And the inconsistency is maddening to me. My own Technorati page, for example, doesn't show any of my posts from the past SIX days. But it did record a new incoming link from just two days ago. But my Authority hasn't been updated yet to reflect that link. When do they say this blog was last updated? Four days ago. Talk about not inspiring a lot of confidence or credibility.

Maybe I'm making too big a deal of this. But if I was the only one who cared, then four of the top 10 links when you do a Google search for "technorati authority rating" wouldn't be to tips on how to increase it.

UPDATE: I tried SIX TIMES to send the content of this post to Technorati using their contact form to get their feedback, and each time got a page with the following text after clicking the Send Message button:

"Doh! The Technorati Monster escaped again. We're currently experiencing backend issues and are working to resolve them as quickly as possible. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience."

When I hit Refresh, I was taken back to my form with all my input fortunately still there but the following message at the top:

"Your Captcha response was incorrect. Please try again."

Trust me when I say my Captcha response was NOT incorrect.

*beats head against keyboard*

To Blog or Not to Blog?

Danelle and I have a little difference of opinion about my blog.

I love it. I think it helps keep my writing skills sharp, demonstrates the power and effectiveness of word-of-mouth to build an audience and provides hard evidence of my proficiency in the types of Web 2.0 tools I'm telling potential employers I have expertise with.

Danelle hates it. Actually, her exact words recently were "violently opposed." She thinks it reveals too much personal information about me and our family, sometimes presents me as crass and unintelligent and raises red flags for potential employers about my discretion (or lack thereof) and commitment to my job search.

Here's the thing -- we're both right.

With the exception of the effect on my writing abilities (and even that's somewhat subjective), all of the items above are based primarily on people's perceptions. I think that e-mailing info about one of my posts to The Big Lead, one of the most widely read sports blogs around, that resulted in them linking to my post and bringing in hundreds of new readers was a fantastic viral marketing move. Someone else may find it self-serving and disingenuous. Danelle thinks putting a picture of Zak in a post is a breach of our family's privacy. I can't discount or dismiss her feelings, since she is by definition a part of the family. But I thought it was harmless and the most relevant image I could find to go with the post.

On a side note, when I observed that her heightened concern about our safety meant she probably watched too much 20/20, she retorted that maybe I don't watch enough. Touché.

What's at the heart of these different perspectives? There's been suggestions that much of it is generational. Younger people are accustomed to more transparency in their lives thanks to everything from "reality TV" to YouTube. Older folks -- and at our age Danelle and I both fall into that category for any discussion of the internet -- have more clearly defined boundaries for what they share with other people, especially total strangers.

My mom drove that point home one day when I excitedly told her that I'd reconnected with some friends from high school on Facebook. She snorted and replied, "I don't use MyFace or Spacebook or any of that crap." Once I stopped laughing, I told her she probably had no idea how completely awesome that remark was.

Fast-forward a couple of months, and that same mom (I only have one) jots the note "Enjoying blog!" on my Father's Day card. If blogging and social networking are fundamentally similar parts of the whole "Web 2.0" phenomenon, how can she embrace one and dismiss the other? Possibly because one opinion was based on substance, and the other on something else. Maybe misinformation, maybe fear of the unknown. But she didn't even know the names of the two biggest social nets in the world -- she just knew she had no use for them.

This is where I think the rubber really hits the road. Blogs aren't inherently "evil" or "dangerous" in the same way that video games, heavy metal and comic books aren't. It's all about how they're used. If someone blogs on company time, or blogs about how much they hate minorities or shares confidential business information on their blog, it's really not the blog that's the problem. If blogs didn't exist, those behaviors would just manifest themselves in different ways. Blogs don't get people fired; people get people fired.

Is there a risk that a potential employer will stumble across my blog, read the line from a past post where I use the word "pit" in talking about how difficult it is to apply deodorant with a broken wrist and conclude that I'm too vulgar to hire? I suppose so. But do I really want to work for a company that would reach that sort of conclusion based on one data point and discount everything else they learned about me? Probably not.

Ditto for an organization that's uncomfortable with transparency. I believe strongly that the benefits of having an open dialogue with customers, empowering them to be critical and embracing those criticisms, has benefits that far outweigh the potential risks. Where the line gets drawn of how much information is too much is certainly open to debate; but as far as I'm concerned that debate is a healthy one to have.

Back to the fear of the unknown issue -- it's human nature to demonize things we don't understand. So some try to blame society's current ills on things like "the internet," as if it was a conscious and malevolent entity and not just a series of tubes. But all "the internet" basically does is accelerate the pace and extend the reach of communication.

Pen pals and ham radio were once the most techonologically advanced ways we had to try and fulfill another aspect of human nature, the need to connect with other people. Jim Saccomano, VP of PR for the Denver Broncos, noted that Thomas Paine was probably one of the first bloggers. He circumvented the mainstream press and used conversational language to speak directly to his audience in his Common Sense pamphlet. So while the way people use the internet today is more evolution than revolution, the tool still freaks people out. I blame Hal from 2001 for the irrational fear of computers, but for whatever reason the fear exists.

Heather Armstrong strikes me as a case of where both these factors combined to have unfortunate consequences. I heard her speak as part of a panel at the SXSW Interactive Festival in March. She's a "blogebrity" who's fairly well known in those circles for getting fired from her job back in 2002 for reasons that had something to do with her personal web site. I don't know the specifics. I haven't even read her side of the story in detail. But what's pretty obvious is that she and her employer had different perspectives on the transparency/privacy subject. And given that this happened in 2002 when the word "blog" couldn't even be used in Scrabble, I'm willing to bet that some folks in her company got the heebie-jeebies just from hearing the word "internet." Doesn't matter that she worked for a web development company; somebody in power over there just didn't get it and overreacted.

Another side note -- Heather's blog makes enough dough from ad revenues that it's now her family's sole source of income. Not bad for a fairly ordinary person who's extraordinarily comfortable being transparent and a halfway decent writer. So there's hope for the other 15 million of us with blogs, much like the hope I get when Zak throws a football that doesn't rotate end over end that he'll one day be an NFL quarterback.

I don't know exactly where this leaves me. I know that I'm going to keep blogging. But I also let Danelle see this post before I put it up and made a couple of changes at her request. I'm also going to probably cross lines from time to time in what certain people consider appropriate -- it's challenging to know that your mother-in-law and drinking buddy both read your blog. But at the same time it's not my purpose to shock or offend, and I'm going to apply what I consider to be common-sense standards to my language and subject matter.

And while Danelle and I may both be right, when it comes to finding my next professional opportunity I'm going to hope like heck that I'm a little more right.

When They Invent a Rice Cake That Tastes Like a Whopper, I'll Probably Be First in Line

I just got back from my physical, which went pretty well with a couple of exceptions. One was the nurse practitioner making quite a production of putting some KY and a pair of surgical gloves out for the doctor, and the other was my cholesterol being a little high.

I first got my cholesterol checked a couple of years ago, and was pretty upset to learn that it was 222. This put me squarely in the "borderline-high risk" category. Compounded with my dad's history of heart problems that eventually led to his early death, I was a little freaked out.

I'm pretty physically active and I don't smoke, so the area where I could most effect a positive change was clearly diet. And there was an easy target within my regular diet -- fast food. I went cold turkey with it and got my cholesterol down into the "desirable" zone at 191 just a few months later.

I've definitely backslid in the ensuing two years to the point where I probably have a fast-food meal two or three times a week, and now my cholesterol is back up to 209. My LDL or "bad" cholesterol level is 136, another "borderline high" number and "a better gauge of risk than total blood cholesterol" according to the American Heart Association.

My doctor said she'd like to see me try and correct this on my own over the next couple of years, then consider medication once I turn 40 if my numbers aren't where they should be. There are probably genetic factors involved that may make this something I can't do on my own. But the real question now is how much am I willing to try?

I know fast food is horrible for you. I saw Super Size Me, which probably would have been more effective if Spurlock hadn't taken his fast-food eating to unrealistically excessive levels. His point became dangerously easy to dismiss when he was doing things like eating multiple entrees at one sitting. But even setting portion control aside, I don't think anyone would argue that a McGriddle and a Coke is as healthy a breakfast as a bowl of high-fiber cereal in fat-free milk with a glass of pomegranate juice.

It comes down to a classic struggle -- sacrificing short-term and direct benefits for long-term, indirect ones. Fast food is convenient, cheap and generally tasty (curse you, MSG!). The benefits of eating healthy are things you may or may not end up getting, and that will also be influenced by a lot of other factors -- better overall health, higher quality of life, longer life and so on. And your stereotypical "healthy" food like a salad can't easily be eaten while driving, is likely to be more expensive than a burger and doesn't excite basic taste sensations like salty, sweet and umami (don't feel bad clicking the link; I had to look that last one up, too).

We face these kind of questions all the time in our lives. Should I play outside and get some fresh air and exercise or just watch another music video? Should I study for that exam that might help me raise my overall GPA to where I get that interview for that great job in a few years, or should I just go to that frat party and get tanked? Should I stay late to finish up that project at work that might help me get a raise and promotion someday, or should I just go home and watch the big game?

Long-term benefits may be harder to quantify, harder to get and feel a lot less in my control. But when I take the time to really think about them, I generally realize they're much more worth having. Is eating that BK Stacker worth the risk of not being around to bounce my grandchildren on my knee? No contest. I just don't often take the time to think about things in those terms, and I don't think I'm unique in that regard.

So I'll try to say good-bye again to Guacamole Bacon Burgers and Spicy Chicken Sandwiches. Sure, I could get hit by a bus and all the sound diet and exercise choices won't matter. But however I eventually go out, I'd like to believe I was mature enough to make sensible choices and set a good example for my kids along the way.

Besides, if I didn't believe in doing things with no direct short-term benefits I probably wouldn't be blogging.

Herman Gulch Trail/Mt. Machebeuf, Part II

As I alluded to yesterday, just hiking up to Herman Lake and back on the Herman Gulch Trail wasn't enough for me. So I decided to make a slight detour and summit Mt. Machebeuf on my return. This ascent looked pretty manageable -- nice saddle, gradual incline, smooth terrain. Piece of cake.

Cute little pika. He must have had a nice set of tunnels under the snow, because he'd disappear and then pop up again on another set of rocks.

The view to the north from the saddle, I believe with Hassell Lake just visible.

Unexpected snippets of trail would appear, then end after just a few yards. Tantalizing little roads to nowhere. I ended up just making my own switchbacks going up the smaller mound in front of the summit.

Trouble in the distance, with a capital "T" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for "precipitation." A cold wind was blowing it right in my direction, too. Good thing I got my new windbreaker last week. It was doing me a lot of good hanging in my closet, too.

The north side of the ridge.

A more persistent trail appeared for the final push to the summit.

The last stretch was pretty steep and rocky, but clearly defined.

The precipitation arrived in the form of hail. The tiny pieces hissed and popped like radio static as they melted on my shirt.

The summit I'd been aiming for turned out, of course, to be a false summit. Fortunately the real one wasn't far off.

I looked for the USGS stamp when I got there, but couldn't find it. And it was too freaking cold to spend a lot of time searching.

I did take the time to enjoy the view to the northeast, though.

The descent proved to be much quicker. I just yelled "As you wish!" and hurled myself down the embankment.

Because I'm a glutton for punishment, here's another wildflower I can't definitively identify. Purple fringe?

The descent actually wasn't that fast at all. I needed to be pretty careful on the steep slope. This is the dizzying view about halfway down.

This climber apparently didn't make it.

The view back up what I'd just scrambled down. I was nuts to even consider climbing UP this way earlier.

Five hours up and down, with nowhere near enough water and just an Odwalla bar for food. The quart of Gatorade I picked up in Georgetown thankfully took care of my dehydration. Next time I think about extending a hike, I need to be sure I've got plenty to drink and appropriate attire. Sort of like going to a wedding reception.

I Don't Think Any Of These Would Even Get Me On "Stupid Human Tricks"

Being in the throes of a job search, I've spent a lot of time focusing on what my "marketable skills" are. Things that use impressive-sounding words like "communication campaign management" and "brand marketing." Things that look good on resumes and sound good in interviews, but are ultimately meaningless without some real roll-up-your-sleeves, get-your-hands-dirty abilities to go along with them.

Danelle and I don't talk about our marketable skills with each other much. They're typically not very romantic, fun or all that interesting outside of professional settings. We enjoy our UNMARKETABLE skills much more. The things you can't really quantify, transfer or develop. The things they don't teach in business school. The things nobody will ever pay you to do, but that you're darn glad you can.

Danelle has a terrific one -- she gets good parking spaces. No matter how crowded the lot, something desirable is conveniently available when she drives by. The skill fades a little when she's a passenger, but doesn't dissipate completely. We've gotten to the point that we just call unexpectedly good parking spots "Danelle spots" and accept that that's what they are.

I've got three that I can think of, one being the ability to order something good in a restaurant I've never been to before. Not just in a self-fulfilling, I-have-to-eat-it-so-I-might-as-well-act-like-I-like-it way. My prowess is generally validated by my dining companions' vocal approval of my selections. Danelle, alas, is not blessed with this gift and generally ends up bemoaning the fact that she didn't order whatever I did. She used to just eat off my plate, but we've matured beyond that. Now she waits for me to offer.

I used to be pretty OCD about ordering in restaurants, to the point of having to order last because I'd get upset if someone else ordered the same item I did. I finally had to get over it after going out to enough meals with my old friend and co-worker Lynn Rosen because she was my polar opposite. She could never decide what to order, and needed to hear what everyone else was having before choosing something. At least our idiosyncracies complemented each other.

Another is that I can tell you the co-stars and usually a few of the supporting cast from a ton of movies I've never seen. It's not something I research or study -- I don't know if I pick it up from commercials or what. And I don't know why it stays in my head when I can't even remember to tell Danelle when her best friend calls. But for whatever reason it does.

"Do you remember French Kiss?"

"Um...Meg Ryan and Kevin Kline, right?"

"Right. Did you like it?"

"Dunno. Never saw it."

My final such skill is really more of a blessing -- I can sleep. Anywhere, anytime, I can just sleep. I've slept in moving cars during hurricanes. I sleep regularly on airplanes. I can fall asleep when Danelle has the light, television and her laptop all on in the bedroom at night.

If I'm not asleep within 10 minutes of going to bed, I get frustrated and complain about how much trouble I'm having getting to sleep. This infuriates Danelle (and probably many of you) to no end, since she typically plans on being in bed for well over an hour before drifting off if she's lucky. Frankly, I have no idea how she can function on how little sleep she gets. If I go more than a few nights without my standard seven hours, it's not going to end well.

None of these things will likely come up in my next interview, but I'll probably get more out of that last one in particular over the course of my life than my expertise in "promotion and media placement." No matter what my LinkedIn profile says.

Taking the Plunge

OK, that's obviously not the REAL Nestea plunge. But anybody in their late 30s to early 40s who watched as much TV as a kid as I did probably gets the reference.

And that's pretty much the best way to describe this venture for me. Whether it will be as refreshing as the iced tea version remains to be seen. But the sensation right now is similar to what it must feel like right before you hit the water -- equal parts apprehension and anticipation.

Will anybody read this? If they don't, does it matter? If they do, will they like it? If they don't, does it matter? The kind of stuff that's probably kept generations of bloggers before me up at night. Well, not exactly GENERATIONS. But you get the point.

Anyway, welcome to the latest slice of self-indulgence to grace the interwebs. Except if you believe the statistics, about a zillion more blogs have already been created since I started writing this post. So that "latest" designation doesn't even apply any more. But the self-indulgent part still does, so at least I got that goin' for me. It's not quite total consciousness, but it's a start.

I'm not really sure where this is going to go yet, if anywhere. Or why I decided to start this now. So I'll spare you all any further navel contemplation for the moment, publish this bad boy and revel in having carved out my own little piece of the blogosphere.

Keep those cards and letters coming!