I did a dumb thing this morning. I chopped my bangs in desperation. Yikes. Not good.
Can I infringe on Barnesyard territory and post about movies some more? Smiles Of A Summer Night was really funny! It was sooo much better on big screen (even if it is just a projected DVD) because I realized ten minutes in I had already watched it less than a year ago but watching it at home by myself I fell asleep during it like 59 times and barely remembered it. Again, it had the tone of Shakespearian farce and reinforced my conclusion that Seventh Seal shouldn't be interpreted to be as serious as most people take it to be. Smiles is very silly. The weirdest thing is that is has the most terrible "night" shooting I've every seen. You know how in the old days, directors would shoot "night" scenes during the day and use those filters that made everything look weird? In this movie Bergman just shoots scenes on sunny days and pretends that they are at night. It's very strange. I could have done without a lot of the scenes of the saucy maid and the lecherous footman musing on the nature of love.
The guy who may be my favorite director who is currently at the top of his game (as opposed to guys that are still working, like Scorcese, but not at their peak) is the Austrian director Michael Haneke, and his new movie is currently playing at the Tower. Problem is, it's a remake of just about my least favorite movie of his from 11 years ago, made with Hollywood actors and in English. This is a really weird and disappointing thing for him to do. I'll still probably go see it, though.
Have you guys seen this? Maybe it will also be printed in the SN&R this week. Hopefully they'll print my emo-ey positive letter, too. Whether you love the article or hate it, someone told me that it got the most hits on their website ever? Did I hear that right? At least it's spotlighting an issue that we can all agree is a problem, even if some of us feel it wasn't reported on to the nth degree of inclusion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
re: the seconds letter.
KS says the SN&R article contained "often-times self-serving comments," but he never cites anything specific.
Is this a oblique reference to internecine squabbles that take place among the various rock scenes in Sac?
It seems to me that the main point of the SNR article was to shed light on how difficult the city makes it to put on certain types of events. The city spends a lot of effort talking about wanting vibrant nightlife etc etc but are obviously fearful of the realities that come along with those things ("Someone might get hurt at a show!" "someone might do drugs at a show!" etc.). Anyone who has had anything to do with live music in Sac already knows this but I'm sure a lot of people don't & they should. And to some extent, now they do. Soriano also wrote in criticizing this article - and yeah, some things were left out & some things were incorrect - but I think the article succeeded in getting its main point across. I enjoyed it despite its inaccuracies. It seems like the people who have a problem with it may be too close to the history of punk/underground music in Sac to let the details go & just see the bigger point of the article. I can see being irritated but to fire off letters that essentially serve to discount the article seems a little shortsighted to me.
-miller
The issues with all-ages shows in Sac. is always a good subject, and it was cool that the SN&R gave the story such good play. But to me, the article wasn't much more than a gripe-fest with a bit of nostalgia. These gripes are well founded, but I wish the author would've talked to people on the other side of this issue. Who are the people that've made it so hard on local venues? What does it take to get an entertainment permit? How about asking someone at City Hall why there's so much red tape involved with this stuff? This could've been a good opportunity to ask people at the city some tough questions. So again, I was glad to see the article but I wish the reportage was deeper.
Maybe there could be a part two for that. I don't think an article that was twice as long really would have captured peoples attention as this one did. I would just assume city officials would dodge the questions and pretend that if you go through all the right channels it should be no problem. But I guess I would like to see how they would answer the questions. I'd also like to see how our dance permit ordinances, etc., contrast to those of other cities.
yrs this week; seconds' next week. coming soon: deeper reportage. for example:
REPORTER: hey mayor, why does the city have so much red tape when it comes to live music?
MAYOR: oh, we support live music and support safe, accessible venues for live music and believe music is an important part of a vibrant, first-class city. we love our local music scene.
REPORTER: got it. right. yr lovin' it. lunch at Ella, tomorrow? ciao baby see you soon.
as for permits: $756 non-refundable fee. you have to be fingerprinted by the PD, which costs $59.50. Forms need to be submitted, including zoning, and PD info forms. Then maybe the fire department will get involved (a la fools foundation). maybe not. This link shows all the exemptions, aka ways to get around the permit: http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=5-5_108-i-5_108_040&frames=on. of course, cutting corners hasn't worked for grid venues in the past (fools, coolcat, red square, yr mom's house). i think javalounge has been successful because they're off the grid and not within marshall stack distance of residences. but the city has been harassing inferno lately, so maybe they're next (hopefully not). i opted not to mention them in the story for those reasons. that said, they're still NOT A MUSIC VENUE. they're a coffee shop, and is that enough to get lazy suburbanites into live music? dunno, not 16 any more. i was ASKED not to write about the vfw in orangevale. i neglected to write about wwcw because i never saw that many good bands there (my bro's band included, sorry dude). i sensationalized the loft anecdotes, so i guess that makes me lazy. i gave ks my card and said to call but he didn't, though when i gave him my card he did say "what all-ages scene?" guess he's changed his tune.
ok off to find the next local and fragmented contingents to piss off ... (word verification: pafuz, haha)
they should let you rebut the letters in next week letters. you guys do that sometimes, why not now?
I learned more about the permitting process for venues in that post a couple back than I did in the entire article. And guess it was best that the reporter didn't talk to anyone at city hall, since you know, their answers are so predicatble. Or something like that ...
letters section is for letter-writers only, imo.
but the permitting process wasn't the focus of the article. if it was, it would have been pretty boring. it's really hard to get people interested enough to read what you write, so most people rely on an angle, and they may have to fiddle with the angle to get it uh, you know, (i'm trying everything to avoid saying "sex it up" but that's kind of what i mean).
re: I learned more about the permitting process for venues...
That was the reporter, btw
re: permitting process is boring
Agreed. That would make a boring article. And what's more to say?...unless you're writing for a law review.
I just think it's bizarre that you (Nicholas) wouldn't consider Java Lounge (and True Love, I'm assuming) a music venue because they're a coffee shop.
Does that mean, because Old Ironsides is a bar and in business to sell booze, they're not a music venue? Or cuz Fool's Foundation was an art space, they're not?
And yes, it DOES get lazy suburbanites out to shows. Often, actually.
And I won't even comment on your comment about WCWW.
Was my smart-ass "what all-ages scene?" comment the catalyst in you not even pursuing a discussion with me about the True Love and our year-long struggle to get our upstairs space, which is SOLELY here for music & art, up and running legally, yeah?
By the way, I do get the gist of the article and in principal I agree that the city does nothing to support live music the way they claim to and I'm happy that the SN&R covered this subject but if you choose to ignore or downplay the few venues who are trying to do something "for the kids" and for live music overall, regardless of our limitations or the fact that we sell coffee to pay the bills.
(...the rest of that spiel)
you really are dissing a pretty cool little thing going on, whether it's your thing or not.
<<"Was my smart-ass "what all-ages scene?" comment the catalyst in you not even pursuing a discussion ...>>
No, worse: deadlines.
But in all seriousness, next time please call back because it would have been good to have your voice in the story. what you do kev is my thing. it is cool. i attend true love and javalounge shows.
but music in town is not what it was. what happened? that's the story.
What exactly is the point to all this bantor again?
So It seems to me that its better to fight with people trying to shed light on how difficult it is to have music venues in sacramento then it is to tackle the city itself with its 1950's ass attitude towards entertainment.
That punk dude!
er... thats punk, dude....is what I meant.
I understand, Nick. It's just when a SN&R writer or one of our area's biggest local music cheerleaders like Jerry says stuff like "the all-ages scene is dead" and it's all because we don't have a Cattle Club or Club Minimal, that's when I get my panties in a wad.
And yes, I do wear panties.
I figured the all-ages angle was a good attention grabber. It carries weight because it's about the kids. But the biggest problem caused by the city ordinances (in my opinion anyway) is the lack of a club that books small & medium level touring bands. You know, just one place like the Hemlock or Bottom Of The Hill or The Independent in SF. All ages is a bonus with these places of course - but not the core problem in Sac's case. If bands aren't even coming here because there's nowhere to play, then a 40 year old is as screwed as a 16 year old.
So yeah, the article brought the city ordinances to light & used all-ages to sorta hype it up when that's not exactly the problem. I didn't mind but I can see if I ran an all-ages place that wasn't mentioned I'd be a little annoyed.
-miller
If Kevin Johnson is elected mayor, just think how long it would take HIM to answer a query about the city government's attitude towards live music. Start your office pools now.
Jed
Somebody might consider checking with the kids to see if they think the music scene sucks or not.
What, if anything, does this have to do with Madame Tutly-Putly? Perhaps we all should stop playing in our little sandbox and start focusing on the real issues (i.e., Madame Tutly-Putly). Does anyone have any idea how much an all-ages Madame Tutly-Putly permit costs in this town? I called City Hall to get the scoop, and they acted like they didn't even know what I was talking about. That's how deep the fear and hatred of Madame Tutly-Putly runs in this town. And yet WHERE'S the local media coverage? Once again, the SNR has dropped the ball.
-DB
I was glad the article was written and found it intersting to read a "media view" of stuff I've lived through. I think the piece would have been much stronger if it hadn't really missed out on presenting the voices of young people who are putting on, playing and attending shows in midtown and beyond. I didn't feel that there was nearly enough coverage of their struggles and successes.
And there have been plenty of successes -- for proof head over to myspace.com/sacramentopunkshows (that's a shameless plug) and see that in the four weeks there are around 30 (that's THIRTY!) all ages shows happening in the area -- and that's just stuff that is somehow punkish-related -- which is way more than happened in any of the mythological all ages glory days of times past.
And, for all the successes that da kidz are having these days, the fact remains that right now the city makes it difficult to do all ages shows and there are some great stories to be told by young folks who are striving to do stuff right now!
Yes, Club Minimal was cool, the Cattle Club was nifty and The Loft was special. (and two of the best bands who I've ever seen in Sacramento played WCWW).
History is fun, but, this is 2008 and there's a whole lot that could have been said about today that somehow didn't make it in there.
take care
Craig
"Well, back in my day..."
--Oldster shaking cane
If people want to read even more on this I just posted something I sent to News and Review...
In response to the News and Review 'all ages" article
Craig
myspace.com/sacramentopunkshows
Jesus, you guys should be grateful that an SNR music writer picked a topic other than Jackie Green or whetever tepid flavor of the month is packing 'em in a Harlows this month. So not mentioning West Coast World Wide makes him fucking Hitler? Every time you bitch about this Miller dude, the terrorists WIN! Of course he's gonna ineveitably leave shit out --I mean, he's writing an article, not a novel.
-- Patrone
LOFT PUNX 4-EVS
SNR and/or Midtown Monthly should start a series of articles on how to make Sacramento a better place to live. There's still plenty of the creative class stuff they can cover. Then there's all the green stuff and the zillions of other stuff rah bah bah.
I thought Miller = Hitler. I've heard Miller eats the Jews.
Smitty, they should have interviewed you to get a fresh perspective on the Old I payment policy. It's been exactly twelve seconds since you last told the story of the No Kill I ban.
Jason Patrone
Los Huevos (1997-1999)
Yeah, it still keeps me up at night 27 years later. Wait, hold on whilst I google kim kanelos. Dang, http://www.nokilli.com/nokilli/ironsides.htm is no longer the top link.
Dave Smith
Milhouse (2000-2001)
patrone-hear! hear!
smitty-banned! j.k. but banned about making jokes about my genitals. and no i did not say ladybits. the term ladybits is banned!
Lets all just spend 6 years straight drinking coffee all night long at Lyons and think this over. hehe
Really bad news about Sol Collective and I guess this is the "best" entry to post it in.
http://www.kcra.com/news/15639894/detail.html
Post a Comment