[Sports] Three Years Later Victory Tastes Just as Sweet

It is no secret that Red Sox Nation is a passionate fan base. In world championship victory, our passion has turned to sentimentality. After breaking an 86-year-old curse, and achieving victory once again this week, ruminating on the meaning of victory and of being a fan, especially to this team, becomes its own pastime.

I wish I had a moment of inspiration with Sunday's victory (for now, my inspiration has been held captive by other projects), but instead I found a beautiful and touching piece on the meaning of the victory from BIll Simmons on ESPN's Page 2. For this one, I'll let Simmons take the lead. For my part, the following post is something I wrote after the 2004 victory (keep in mind it was less than a week before the 2004 presidential election).


Hope: The Meaning of Victory

The other day I heard someone responding to a statement about athletes thanking God for their achievements by saying, “Why would God go out of his way for your team to win, but do nothing to stop the Holocaust?” Unsure why at first, since I do not consider myself a very religious man, I took issue with this. But then, I thought, what if God cannot prevent us from doing wrong? What if God cannot stop men from performing evil deeds? Man makes the world he lives in, not God. It is within the culture human beings create that the worst evils have been performed, not in the world that God created. In the world that we live, God – the belief in some higher power or some great force beyond ourselves – acts most importantly as a beacon of hope. Hope in whatever world it is we dream of. Hope – that is the prayer that follows us wherever we go so long as we never give in to the terrible things that continue to manifest themselves around us. Perhaps God’s duty is not to restore good to the world, but to keep hope alive, to touch the human soul so that it never gives in. If so, where else would his influence turn but to sports?

The human desire to engage in playful competition may be one of the oldest cultural phenomena: from ancient Greece to the 2004 Boston Red Sox. Games present no malice to a righteous planet. They are a means to enjoying our world and engaging with our fellow human beings, a necessary part to our dream of peace – that is pure, just like our belief in a higher power. Sports – in America baseball – in the purest sense, magnify every emotion that makes us human. In victory, it has us hugging strangers, and, in defeat, we sulk as one in our collective sorrows; it gives us joy and grief, bliss and anger with the fickleness of every pitch thrown. What other spectacle plays so heavily into the disposition of our lives than that of baseball? In America, nothing.

In every game, there is an element that is beyond human control. Whether it is the moisture in the air or the arrangement of the cards, an unknown variable exists in every play. Every good player has their superstitions – some faith in that unknown variable, whether it be God or a little spit in your batting gloves. God cannot stop genocide, or rig elections or prevent terrorists from attacking, but maybe he can create the right gust of wind to send a ball into the foul pole, or manipulate the behavior of particles under the perfect slider, or provide a wet warning track in St. Louis to turn Orlando Cabrera’s Game 3 fly ball into a two run double. And, by doing so, God can touch every one of the millions of people who love the game.

For many of us, the world seems like a scarier place than ever before. Violence and war escalate everyday while greed and self-interest act as virtues to those with power. There may be, for many of us, a sense of hopelessness. But the Boston Red Sox, over the past eleven days, erased that feeling with a record eight consecutive post season wins and the reversal of an 86-year-old old curse. They have restored the hope of defeating Evil Empires and defying terrible odds, all with goofy haircuts, a “cowboy up” attitude and the determination to never give up, even when they were one strike away from elimination.

Like Joe Louis knocking out Max Schmeling in Munich, and like the 1980 U.S. hockey team beating the Russians, maybe God did have an investment in the outcome; maybe he was sending us a sign with a “miracle” victory over the rival Yankees and perhaps the greatest display of team spirit and resilience in the game's history. Then there were those the other signs: trying to eighty-six the 86-year-old curse they came too close to breaking in 1986 (and I hate numerology), and the last out of the series, which came by a ground ball from Edgar Renteria, the Cardinals #3 (the same number as Babe Ruth…okay, that’s kind of cool), and of course I have to mention the current resident of Babe Ruth’s former Boston home, who was struck by a foul ball off the bat of Manny Ramirez (the World Series MVP) earlier this season, giving him a bloody and broken face (okay, that’s really cool).

Yes, it’s been a great year for Boston. And no matter what the outcome on November 2nd, October baseball has hailed in a new era of hope and change that begins from within ourselves, a new time to be human: to play for the game not the record, for the team not yourself, to be a band of “idiots” with an unquenchable desire to win, not dominate, but to play your best when it counts the most.

So, whatever the political state of the world is a year from now, and however miserable we feel because of it, we will turn our hopes once again to the baseball diamond to remind us that our dreams can come true. It’s why Woodrow Wilson and FDR made sure Major League Baseball continued during the violence of two world wars and why I know I’ll be watching next year. Red Sox Nation has finally seen the light of tomorrow and all it took was 86 years of yesterday’s hopes to get them there.

As Tom Hanks, a California native, standing on the green monster during Game 2 said, “I’m an American. There’s nothing wrong with the city of St. Louis. They are a lovely people. They have lovely colors on their baseball uniforms. But come on! I want Billy Buckner to have a good night’s sleep for crying out loud!” Because even Bill Buckner deserves the chance to dream. This was gigantic!

read more......

[Art] Radiohead Redefines the Industry

It is not a revelation that things in the music industry have changed. Even despite all the resistance from the record industry, it is a whether-you-like-it-or-not shift in the way we listen to, buy and distribute music. And it is, for now, an obvious shift, meaning that the various channels of access are all visible. So seemingly it is only a matter of adopting to the new channels for the industry to shift ptoperly...But there is one band out there that is not only challenging this notion, but is simultaneously challenging the entire economics of the arts itself. It is Radiohead.

Radiohead has already released its next record ("In Rainbows"), but you can't find it at Virgin Megastore, at the Apple iTunes store, and certainly not in the Billboard 100. This is not because Radiohead lacks a strong fan base. In fact, for the release of "Kid A," the band's fourth album which came after a four year hiatus from touring and recording, the band did not make a music video and did not release a radio single, and still the album went No. 1 in its first week of sales. Quite the opposite is the case: it is, in part, Radiohead's extremely devout fan base that has allowed them be so unconventional in their latest release...the other part is their sheer will to challenge every notion we have about pop music and our access to it.

To get Radiohead's "In Rainbows" could not be any simpler. Go to the band's (not the record company's) website and download the entire album for whatever price you think is necessary...for as little as $0.00 (the album will be released in hard editions later this year too). It is exceedingly obvious that this is a novel approach, but what isn't so obvious is the implication set forth by such a DIY-style of purchasing and distribution.

Following the obvious, Radiohead took advantage of the most blatant shift in the industry -- that with the internet I don't need a record company and a teamster to distibrute my music...I don't even need the iTunes music store. This is an industry killer even for those adopting to the new forms and channels by which we can access music. This is power to the artist and the consumer.

It is not shocking that the industry recoils in horror to this idea, but that artists have is. So many musicians want to resist these paradigm shifts, but why? Or maybe more importantly, why not Radiohead? It is to Radiohead's great advantage that they enjoy not only a large and loyal following, but also constant critical acclaim. But shouldn't this only entice them to maximize profits more? One would assume that, like other popular artists, anyone who stands to make windfall profits off their music would resist cheap and easy access to it...I mean, such is the nature of capitalism. However, such is not the nature of pop music, which for fifty years has, if nothing else, been a constant symbol of rebellion, from Bill Haley and the Comets to Ani DiFranco.

Which is why it is in disbelief that I recall an interview in which Lou Reed professed to be against downloading music. Lou Reed, the definitive iconclast of the 1970s counterculture, supports the status quo? And does so at a time when counterculture finds its greatest ever empowerment? There is only one reason for this: money. And what is sacrificed by that money? Art.

Lou Reed once said of music, "People should die for it." That is quite sensational, especially for a musician still living, but having said that, what is worth dying for that is not worth losing money for? Why should the industry thrive at the expense of keeping artists honest? The fact is, it simply won't. Not if Radiohead has anything to say about it.

Their may not be windfall profits in Radiohead's business model, but, in this green day-and-age, there is money (and most importantly artistic integrity). According to reports I've heard, the average price offered for a download of Radiohead's "In Rainbows" is $8. That is astounding, so much so that it defies every claim artists and labels make about their suffering in the age of digital music. It just proves one thing: people will pay for good honest artistry.

What can be wrong with this? Nothing. In fact, what Radiohead is doing is raising the bar for every artist (not just musicia) out there. If you love your art, you will give it away, and if it is good people will say let me invest in this. When you buy something, art or otherwise, it is an investment, not just an investment of money (especially as most such purchases do not provide any profit upon resale), but an investment of time, emotion, health etc. And the future, this says, will not allow a Britney Spears to sell 100,000 copies of her album, because it is a wasted investment. All lovers of art would tell you in a heartbeat that you cannot really put a price on the pleasure and comfort of the perfect song or a beautiful painting. And Radiohead has done just that: not put a price on it.

If making money is anywhere on your list of priorities, then you are not an artist. And if you are not willing to pay for it, you are not an art lover. The future, as Radiohead models it, is void of both types. That is raising the bar. That is saying, if you do not want to give away your music, then don't make it, and if you aren't willing to craft every song with the utmost dilligence and put every ounce of creativity you have behind it, no one will pay a dime for it. And Radiohead is taking that idea beyond the studio into the business room, being so creative with their method of distribution that people, at this stage, may simply be willing to pay in support of their method. That's the green revlution of music (and someday all art).

read more......