There’s a new U2 CD available next week, and I’ll be getting my copy even though the early portions I’ve heard haven’t exactly made me sit up and take notice. However, I should say that I haven’t heard one song all the way through as yet; I’ve been catching snippets of songs on the radio, not exactly the best way to judge a CD, but I’ve been a fan since my record store owning friend gave me a promo the copy of their first album “Boy” back in 1980.
But that’s not what this is about. A review of the CD is in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine, by one of the longest tenured and revered critics, Robert Fricke, and according to his review, it is the best CD since “Achtung Baby.” Well, this is high praise indeed because I think that Baby is one of the best CDs ever. It makes my 10 “desert island discs,” which is saying something since I have over 3,000 CDs and records.
Unfortunately, this review does not bode well, as it seems that any “big” release, in these days of declining record company importance, is almost guaranteed of getting “four” or five “stars.” Bruce Springsteen’s new CD got five stars despite not being as good (in my mind) as the previous release “Magic” and certainly not as good as the great albums of before. But the new CD “Working On A Dream,” while sharing more instrumentation than any Springsteen collection since “Born To Run,” that’s where the comparison ends, but not in RS. It was “Born To Run 2.”
Now, perhaps, these artists are “critic-proof” like former Chicago Reader movie reviewer Dave Kehr called “Gone With The Wind,” but for a magazine that has a reputation of being honest (especially in its exposés in the later part of the George W. Bush Presidency and being an early backer of President Obama), if you can’t trust them; if they are tainted by money like everything else in 21st Century America, they can’t be trusted for anything.
If you can’t trust the critics to “call them fairly,” you have the made up “quotes” employed by the movie studios. You remember: there was a big furor when it was revealed that many of the media quotes proclaiming the latest Adam Sandler or “Friday the 13th Part 1,214” as “the greatest film of all time,” or “the feel-good hit of the season,” or other BS hyperbole. While it has never been written about thoroughly, it has been said that the editorial policy of not knocking big acts was the reason that Chicago Tribune music critic Jim DeRogodis left RS.
Think I’m full of it? Here is the gist of an article I downloaded off the Internet some time ago about another of my favorite bands, R.E.M., who have not been the same since drummer Bill Berry retired from the band. But you’d never know that from the Rolling Stone reviews (I apologize to whomever wrote this, I forgot to take down the location of the site to give you proper credit – my apologies):

“’Accelerate is […] one of the best records R.E.M. have ever made…
… [Singer Michael] Stipe has not sounded this viscerally engaged in his singing and poetically lethal in his writing since the twilight of the Reagan administration…
…Ultimately, the best thing about Accelerate is that R.E.M. sound whole again.’
As we mentally added those emphases, we pondered their meaning, and once we got it straight we liked what we were hearing. There had been a lull, Fricke was telling us. There were certainly some R.E.M. albums that weren’t the band’s best, obviously, but this wasn’t one of them. Since the Reagan years–i.e., the late 1980s–he seemed to imply, Stipe’s singing was sometimes not engaged and not lethal. But that, thankfully, had been rectified. The subtext of all three of these observations was plain: R.E.M. is getting better. It was a relief. We even chuckled at the idea of the previous R.E.M. record, which must have not been up to the group’s usual standards.
So we went back to RS’s review of that release, Around the Sun. We were a little confused, at first, because the reviewer, Barry Walters, hailed the thing as a “comeback”! He continued: ‘Unlike 1998’s Up, on which the band crafted beautiful but belabored studio experimentation, and unlike 2001’s Reveal, where they relaxed but didn’t deliver many memorable melodies, R.E.M. here resemble their classic selves.’
Hmm. It sure sounded like R.E.M. had been back in top rock ‘n’ roll form for that one too. But fortunately, Walters was pointing us to the real problem: It must have been Reveal!
We hate Reveal!
Our fingers smudged and aching (metaphorically), we paged back to that review next. We couldn’t wait. The executioner was Rob Sheffield: ‘The last we heard from R.E.M. was the 1998 transitional album Up, their first without [drummer Bill] Berry, a sour, parched affair that hasn’t gained any luster with time.
But the past few years have been rough on R.E.M. and their fans, especially with the departure of drummer Bill Berry. So it’s inspiring to hear Michael Stipe, Peter Buck and Mike Mills brighten up on Reveal, telling a few fables of their own reconstruction with an album of gorgeous, woozily sun-struck ballads. […] It’s a spiritual renewal rooted in a musical one.’
We were chagrined at first. A renewal? Why, that’s one step removed from a redux, and a kissing cousin to a comeback. But then we realized. Reveal wasn’t the problem. We love Reveal! It was a reconstruction-like renewal. And inspiring, too.
Finally, the last piece of the puzzle had clicked into place. It was unanimous. David Fricke, Barry Walters and Rob Sheffield: They were all telling us that the nadir of R.E.M.’s career was a snake-in-the-grass little CD called Up. That must have been the real culprit!
We trembled with anticipation to read the spanking the magazine must have given that dog! Ann Powers had the assignment: ‘Like 1992’s Automatic for the People, Up seeks a unified mood, but its scope is broader than that collection of elegies.
[…]. Radiohead’s OK Computer […] is the Pet Sounds to this Sgt. Pepper–the challenge that stimulates risk. Buck and Mills cultivate the same multitiered spaciousness that makes OK Computer so rich. Trading off instruments, denying the guitar its usual primacy without diminishing its impact, Buck and Mills have orchestrated their rock as never before. ‘
So Up was better than Automatic for the People … and worthy of comparison not just to OK Computer but Sgt. Pepper. It sure didn’t sound that bad.
At that point, we realized what the problem was. R.E.M. had set the bar for itself, and reviewers, impossibly high. On its eleventh studio album, Up, the group had come up with a Sgt. Pepper-like masterpiece.”

It’s Me again. I should mention that while I liked Accelerate and Around The Sun didn’t suck, they rank nowhere near Automatic for the People, or Document, or Murmur, or Life’s Rich Pageant. I admit that I don’t like Reveal and I think Up is nearly unlistenable. It is certainly not “Sgt. Pepper.” In fact, “Up” and “Reveal” are the only R.E.M. CDs that are not on my iPod. So, is it possible that the U2 CD next week will suck? I don’t think so, and I’ve already ordered my copy on Amazon (I like to have a physical “CD,” I can’t just download).
This all comes down to credibility. As you may know, I’ve swapped correspondence with movie critic extraordinaire Roger Ebert, and while we have at times disagreed, I have no doubt that it was his opinion, untainted by hype, the media machine, the movie studios, even public opinion. Roger says that a movie sucks, even if it is a huge hit. And he also says that he likes movies that the high brow movie snobs don’t. It takes courage and integrity to do this.
I wonder if the music critics at Rolling Stone have any courage and integrity? Or do they just have their hands out? Or are they too scared that they’ll make the musicians angry?

It’s Oscar weekend, and so, movies are on the lips of everyone, but I don’t want to discuss who I think should or will win the little naked guys statues. Instead, I would like to address Entertainment Weekly’s list of the top 25 directors working today.
Now I know that these “best of” and “top 10” lists are usually one guy’s opinion (occasionally a panel, but usually one guy, and not a respected name like Roger Ebert), and it exists to inflame people and start conversation, I would have expected a better list from a magazine that is supposed to follow the entertainment industry.
First, of course, there are too many young filmmakers on the list with recent hits but no track record. On the EW list, this includes No. 25 Jon Favreau (Iron Man was great, Elf good, but how can he make the list with only three directed movies); No. 16 Zack Snyder (300 was good but limited and Watchmen looks great, but that’s not a “body of work”); and No. 4 Christopher Nolan (Momento was very good, as were the Batman movies, but again, where’s the track record. Judd Apatow made the list at number 14, but since I haven’t seen a truly funny movie in over a decade, his work is lost on me. I believe that only Nolan deserves to make the list at this point and near the bottom..
Then there are the “workmenlike” directors – guys who are good, but not great (or at least deserve to be lower on the list. Ron Howard (20) is a decent director, but no auteur. The same can be said for Ang Lee (no. 21) and even Ridley Scott (6)
Then there are the guys who haven’t done a film in a very long time, like Jim Cameron at 9 and Peter Jackson who is number 2. Titanic was released 12 years ago and while “avatar” is reportedly in production, who knows when and if we will ever see it. Jackson’s last film was King Kong in 2005.
EW should be given credit for picking some foreign directors like Pedro Almodovar (24) (although his films do nothing for me) and Guillermo Del Toro (11), along with some edgier directors like Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood) at 22, Paul Greenglass (United 93, Bloody Sunday, the “Bourne” movies) at 23, Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler, Pi) at 17 and Steven Soderbergh (Che, Oceans 11, 12, 13) at number 5.
Also, as you can tell, there are a lot of directors who are ranked higher than Clint Eastwood (19). He should be much higher.
The biggest controversy is over who was left off. Spike Lee makes no appearance, nor does Woody Allen. While neither make huge hits, they are some of the best received and critiqued films around. There’s no Sidney Lumet, still going strong into his 80s with films like Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead. David Cronenberg makes no appearance despite more mainstream fare like A History of Violence and Eastern Promises. There’s no roman Polanski, or Robert Rodriguez, or George Romero, Oliver Stone, or Gus Van Zant.
Finally, while it makes sense to have Steven Spielberg (“Walt Disney for the 21st Century”) at number 1 because of the billions of dollars his films have generated, I think that in 50 years, serious students of the art form will be watching and studying Scorsese films. When you want escapist fare, Spielberg is the best director; but when it comes to serious stories however, Scorsese is the man.

So, here is EW’s list and mine
EW TF
25 Jon Favreau David Mamet
24 Pedro Almodovar Richard Linklater
23 Paul Greenglass Darren Aronofsky
22 Paul Thomas Anderson Michael Mann
21 Ang Lee Ridley Scott
20 Ron Howard Gus Van Zant
19 Clint Eastwood Chrstopher Nolan
18 Danny Boyle Paul Greenglass
17 Darren Aronofsky Paul Thomas Anderson
16 Zack Snyder Sam Raimi
15 Sam Raimi Woody Allen
14 Judd Apatow Sidney Lumet
13 Tim Burton Robert Rodriguez
12 David Fincher Peter Jackson
11 Guillermo Del Toro David Cronenberg
10 The Coen Brothers Spike Lee
9 Jim Cameron Tim Burton
8 Michael Mann David Fincher
7 Quentin Tarantino Guillermo Del Toro
6 Ridley Scott The Coen Brothers
5 Steven Soderbergh Quentin Tarantino
4 Chrstopher Nolan Steven Soderbergh
3 Martin Scorsese Clint Eastwood
2 Peter Jackson Steven Spielberg
1 Steven Spielberg Martin Scorsese

Hurray for The Tennis Channel. The network has canceled plans to broadcast the Barclays Dubai Tennis Championships because Shahar Peer, the 45th-ranked women’s player according to the World Tennis Association from Israel, was denied a visa by the United Arab Emirates.
The channel’s web site posted the following notice: “Tennis Channel recognizes that this exclusion has been made by state authorities and neither the tour nor tournament directors themselves. However we also honor the role and proud tradition that tennis has always played as a driving force for inclusion both on and off the courts. Preventing an otherwise qualified athlete from competing on the basis of anything other than merit has no place in tennis or any other sport, and has the unfortunate result of undermining the credibility of the very nature of competition itself.”
And, in a rare stand from a Rupert Murdoch owned entity, The Wall Street Journal Europe is dropping its sponsorship of the tournament. Considering his total disdain for anything that doesn’t make money, I was shocked to see Murdoch allow the WSJ to take a stand.
The spin from the UAE is that they banned Peer “for her own protection.” Sure, they did. They didn’t want an Israeli athlete to come to their land and perhaps, win a title. In a land where women are completely covered by clothes in public, and a culture in which a husband can behead a “disobedient” wife, having a Jewish woman playing tennis sends a message of religious and sexual tolerance that the UAE isn’t ready for.
It is about time to put these historic but wasteful differences aside. The more of these people who want a return to the 14th Century, should be given land, have it walled up, and allowed to live that life. But the radical fundamentalists (of every stripe) are just trying to have the entire world see things as they do, and, by doing so, rule the world. Well, the world is a big place, and no one religion or world view will prevail (thank goodness). Nor should it.
But what about the players? Why aren’t they pulling out of the tournament in droves? Are the appearance fees so large that they can’t afford to miss another pay day? Or are they just longing to go somewhere warm? I know that the popular image of tennis players is of aloof, spoiled, narcisisstic multi-millionaires. Wouldn’t it be nice once if the popular perception was proven wrong?

The admission that Alex Rodriguez took performance enhancing substances has created a huge ripple effect on the game of baseball. Rodriguez held, what should be considered an ill-considered press conference that only made things worse for the third baseman. He said that an unnamed “cousin” of his purchased an over the counter steroid he called “boli” that was injected into his body. Yeah, a guy who is signed to a one-quarter of a billion dollar contract is going to have some stuff he doesn’t know from a cousin into his body. Rodriguez would have just been better to say “I did it” and left the rest up to the imagination instead of trying to put a spin on the story.
Then, never one to miss a chance to comment, White sox manager Ozzie Guillen said that a 50-game suspension for steroid use is not enough – a 1-year penalty is better. The same day, Boston superstar DH David Ortiz agreed with Guillen; meanwhile Cub pitcher Ted Lilly said that there were more important things to think about, in effect, the same head in the sand approach to the subject that got us into this mess to begin with.
In today’s Chicago newspapers, two Cub superstars, Derrick Lee and Aramis Ramirez not only agreed with the suspension, but Ramirez said that the only way for baseball to start to clear the air would be to release the names of the other 103 players who tested positive in 2003.
Well, that will never happen; the union will see to that. The Players’ Union sent a memo to all of the players as Rodriguez was dancing around the truth like Ali in his press conference, from Major League Baseball Players Association executive director Donald Fehr and general counsel Michael Weiner. The memo reportedly told players to be careful answering questions sparked by the media frenzy surrounding these stories. The memo outlines the union’s response to several questions that players could be asked like:
“What was the purpose of the 2003 drug testing? Why weren’t the samples destroyed? Did the MLBPA delay for months? Is there a list with names of players? How should I respond if I am asked about the 2003 tests?” and the killer question: “Did any MLBPA official improperly tip off players about the 2004 tests?”
The union will be doing all it can to keep the names of the other players secret despite the fact that most of the other facts pertaining to this case are breaking faster that the levees after Hurricane Katrina. Which leads us to – who’s to blame?

Newsday and the Chicago Tribune reported yesterday that Commissioner Bud Selig feels that he bears no blame for the steroid catastrophe that blossomed on his watch.
In a lengthy telephone interview, Selig, the former used car salesman and one time owner of the Milwaukee Brewers, disputed the widely held perception that he was in any way complicit in the proliferation of steroids in major-league baseball during the past 15 years.
“I don’t want to hear the commissioner turned a blind eye to this or he didn’t care about it,” Selig said. “That annoys the you-know-what out of me. You bet I’m sensitive to the criticism. The reason I’m so frustrated is, if you look at our whole body of work, I think we’ve come farther than anyone ever dreamed possible.” Selig pointed to the reduction in the number of positive steroid tests among major- and minor-league players during the past three years, as well as the institution of amphetamine testing as evidence that baseball’s 2005 drug policy is working.
But that’s after most of the damage had been done. Selig defended his efforts to stop the use of performance-enhancing drugs as far back as 1999, the year after Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, two now-suspected steroid users, had the heroic home run derby that brought droves of people back to ballparks after the work stoppage of 1994. “I’m not sure I would have done anything differently,” Selig said.
Why not, Bud? There is plenty of blame to go around. First, of course, are the players, who tried to get an edge by cheating, because no one was looking. Then there is plenty of blame for the drug pushers, sycophants, and hangers-on that provided the substances to the athletes for money, for prestige, for the ability to bask in the reflected glow of the superstar athletes.
The Players’ Union, who has been fighting the owners for so long that hey sold their souls, is also to blame. Instead of giving out information to their membership that players were taking risks with their health, livelihoods, and facing potential criminal charges, they did everything possible to protect the players (much like the suck-up friends of the players). As long as there’s no scandal and the salaries and union dues were flowing, the best thing to do with the Barry Bondses of the world was to make it harder to find out what was going on. (The one portion of Selig’s interview that I do believe is when he said that he wanted drug testing earlier that 2004 but was stopped by the union on all fronts. Considering the relationship between players and the owners for decades, distrust was understandable by the union.)
But, Bud, the stain is on your hands too. You were there watching McGwire and Sosa, and Bonds and Roger Clemens doing things that may have been impossible unaided, but with the turnstiles turning at a record pace, you and the owners put your heads in the proverbial sand faster than ostriches. You could have pushed harder. You could have used Congress and the media to put pressure on the union to clean up the game, but you stood silent and cheered McGwire and Sosa like everyone else and counted the money.
And finally, yes, we the fans are to blame as well. We eat up the achievements of McGwire and Sosa and Bonds and Clemens with all of the gusto (and dollars) we could give. Very few of us asked the tough questions – “how did Barry Bonds get so large?” “Does it make sense that men in their 40s are performing better than they did in their 20s and 30s?”
Yes Bud, there’s plenty of blame to go around. But like the plaque the late President Harry Truman had on his desk, “The Buck Stops Here.” Bud, the buck stops with you. You can’t decry people not taking responsibility without taking some yourself.

Robbie Alomar was a top second baseman for the Blue Jays, Orioles, Padres, Indians and White Sox in a playing career that spanned from 1988 to 2004. In that time, he was an All Star 12 times; had 10 Gold Gloves; won two World Series titles with Toronto; had a .300 lifetime batting average, had 2,724 hits, and 210 home runs.
In short, Alomar posted a career that appears destined for Cooperstown one day soon, except for the constant spectre of controversy. Too many people will remember Alomar most for the argument he had with umpire John Hirschbeck on September 27, 1996. Alomar got into an argument at home plate on a strike call and spat on Hirschbeck. Alomar was suspended, and there was a lot of hand wringing against him. He was the poster boy for the “bad athlete” for a time. Personally, I think that there was something that Hirschbeck said to Alomar to make him, a model citizen on the diamond before and afterward, spit on him. Alomar at first claimed that it was a racial epithet, and Hirschbeck has never come clean on the incident, but, unfortunately, too many writers will remember Alomar for that, instead of the great second baseman he was.
Which leads us to controversy off the field. Alomar was engaged for a long time to tennis star Mary Pierce, but they never married, and I always found it strange that he was never at her matches and I don’t remember her at ballgames. (Of course, three of the four major tennis tournaments – the French open, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open – occur during baseball season. That still leaves Australia.)
However, that is nothing like what is occurring now. Earlier this week, just after Alomar’s celebrated his 41st birthday, an ex-girlfriend, Ilya Dall sued Alomar for negligence, asking for $15 million in damaged, because he reportedly has AIDS and still required her to have unprotected sex. Alomar’s attorney did not denied the allegations (according to Wikipedia), but Alomar’s father Sandy, a former major leaguer, and now bench coach for the Mets says “That’s the first time we ever heard of that,” concerning the story that Robbie being HIV positive, or having full-blown AIDS. What’s more, Alomar’s current girlfriend says that Alomar is perfectly healthy.
So, is this just a jealous lover looking for money and the proverbial pound of flesh? Probably, but it’s just such a bizarre story. Many people are fans of Robbie Alomar (especially my deal friend Susan Yerby). I wonder if the tabloid stuff or the ghost of the John Hirschbeck incident will have any impact on the Hall of Fame balloting next year. It shouldn’t. but you still have to wonder what kind of woman Robbie Alomar hangs with…

As gifted and talented as Alex Rodriguez is, it is obvious that he never cultivated his mind as well. First, he married a woman much older than he, and one cannot say that she didn’t see him as a multi-million dollar merger instead of a relationship. So, the marriage ends. What does Rodriguez do? He hooked up with a then-still-married Madonna, another woman much older than he; that relationship falters.
Meanwhile, he “settles” for less money to stay with the Yankees, but the pressure is increasing since it has been almost a decade since the Yankees last won a World Series; well before Rodriguez came to town.
So, last week, Sports Illustrated reported that Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003; one of the 104 players who tested positive at that time. At first, Rodriguez refused comment, referring questions to the Players’ Union, but eventually he granted an interview to ESPN’s Peter Gammons where he admitted that he used performance enhancing substances from 2001-2003. He didn’t say it directly, but he began using steroids after signing the largest sports contract in history, $250 million with the Texas Rangers. I assume that he figured 1) “everybody else is doing it, so why not?” and 2) it will help me justify my huge contract. The Indignant Wife and I attended a White Sox/Texas game just after he signed the big contract; and there was a guy who had calculated how much Rodriguez earned per times he fielded a grounder; took a strike; took a ball; got a hit; etc. He had little signs made up, and every time A-Rod did something wrong; he held up one of the signs. The pressure to perform is great; but being paid ¼ of a billion dollars, the pressure has to be beyond huge.
Still, however, there is no excuse for this. He has been one of the best players in baseball without the steroids; why does he cause possible harm to his body when he doesn’t need it? Barry Bonds, I understand – he was jealous of the other steroid boys: Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa getting all of the press. Other possible cheats I understand – they want to prolong their careers and the big money contracts. But Rodriguez was in the prime of his career, already on his way to being the youngest player in history to hit 500 home runs. While we must acknowledge him coming forward to admit his guilt; he didn’t do so until Sports Illustrated “out-ed” him.
So, what does this do to the image and legacy of Alex Rodriguez, especially if he does eventually break Barry Bonds’ all time home run record? Let’s deal with A-Rod the player first – the nasty comments and cheers aimed at him are only going to get worse, and playing in New York means that he won’t get a respite from the home crowd. Unless he can prove he quit in 2003, the cloud will always hang over him, just as it has everyone tainted by this scandal. And in New York, until he both 1) has a great postseason, AND 2) the Yankees win the World Series, New Yorkers may never warm to the sweet swinging infielder with the cherubic face. Major League baseball can, and will do nothing, since performance enhancing drugs were not specifically prohibited in 2003.
And what of the Hall of Fame? Honestly, if Rodriguez does not fail a drug test, and no one can prove that his claims to have stopped using drugs ending in 2003, he will remain a lock to make the Hall of Fame. Unlike McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, et.al.; he has come clean, and the baseball writers like to tear down ballplayers and then write about them again as they make their comebacks. And since the substances weren’t illegal the 2004 collective bargaining agreement, all records set during the period have to stand. We can’t prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, who did what, how often and when? However, every player proven to have taken performance enhancing drugs should have their plaques denote such. For example, A-Rod’s plaque in Cooperstown, NY should someday have 2001-2003 with an asterisk, showing proven use of performance enhancing drugs. It sounds like a cop out or a compromise, but realistically, it’s the only way to deal with the issue, especially with the likes of a Ty Cobb in the Hall.