This week, I am heading to Vegas for the 5th Annual Social Media Conference put on by Ragan Communications. This will be my third trip to this event. I keep going because social media is evolving so quickly. There is always something new to learn. I also like this event because, on two previous trips, there were few pat-yourself-on-the-back presentations. Not a lot of "look how good we are at social media." Instead, it has tended to turn into a forum... lots of discussion that turns out to be constructive. A lot of people realizing that while many have established best practices, we all still have a lot to learn from one another.
Since last year's event, we've seen the launch of Google+. We've also seen Pintrest come out of nowhere and, seemingly, take all the buzz G+ hoped for. And this little thing called Timeline launched from Facebook.
While I am sure the discussion will hit on all of these, the topic I am hoping to bring up - either in a session when it's appropriate or in end-of-day networking - is whether or not we overestimate the power of the individual in a social media world.
Without a doubt, the world of customer service has changed with the emergence of social channels. JetBlue can tell you how to rebook your weather-delayed flight - or the best place to spend your layover at JFK - if you tweet at them. The recent uproar over Susan G. Komen for the Cure certainly showed how social media channels can gather the masses to rally around an issue.
What has been grinding my gears lately has been people attempting to turn their individual problems into national crusades against a brand. I've seen many examples of this, but the tipping point for me was a blogger whose relative had a problem changing to an earlier flight on American Airlines and had to suffer the injustice of waiting for an originally-scheduled flight. The flier didn't want to pay the fee to change to an earlier flight and the blogger used this as a call to arms.
Maybe I fly too much. But, despite the outrage folks have over checked bag fees and the like, there is a rather complicated business model behind airlines and they have their reasons (primarily, profitability, but I digress...) Still, I can understand the frustration. But, the blogger turned this into a crusade. He repeatedly tweeted the link to his blog to the masses (which appeared to have not been proofread) and imploring people to tell the world just how bad it is flying American Airlines.
I was tempted to note in a comment that, given that American is in Chapter 11, they have a boatload of other problems, but I am not one to troll.
The larger issue is how this is just one example of all of us feeling... over-empowered? I realize that word of mouth is the most powerful brand tool in the arsenal. Bad word of mouth has killed more than a few products.
But word-of-mouth is greater than the sum of its parts. I hate to say it, but everyone has had a bad time with at least one airline. You had a bad flight and didn't get your money back or whatever you demanded of the gate agent who somehow endures eight hours every day of being yelled at? Join. The. Club.
I guess what I am trying to say is that FedEx screwing up your shipment, United losing your bags or whatever individualized injustice you have suffered is not a reason to start a social media crusade. Why? Because in most of these cases, 99% of the other people doing what you did that day probably were OK with things. And if other recent events tell us anything, people will not rally around the 1%.
Yet, it seems we are deluded by the power of social media. That something could "go viral" and start a movement. And then we blog. We tweet. We start Facebook groups. We do anything and everything to try and rally people to our individual search for validation.
The thing is, at some point, people in a movement ask why they're fighting. Heaven help you if they're fighting only for your cause. Maybe we're just all looking for affirmation.
To me, though, the beauty of all of our social channels is how movements grow organically. Usually informed by champions who not only have a gripe... but a solution. One that aligns with the business or goals of their targets in a meaningful way. Something that gets the target to listen.
I think this is an issue we have to address. The customer service aspects of social media are amazing. But to assume this opens the door to clutter of every individuals' axes to grind, we run the risk of trivializing the power of the channel to truly address worthy causes.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
Caffeinated
Wherever you live, you're likely used to the stereotypical questions that come from others upon hearing where you live. Live in Atlanta? "How about that heat?" Maine? "How's the lobstah?" Denver? "Do you ski?"
Seattle, comes with more than a few stereotypes. The first question after "So, you don't mind the rain?" is usually, "Gee, but you guys have some great coffee, huh?"
Stereotypes are rooted in truth. It cannot be disputed that it rains here with some frequency. But stereotypes are also oversimplifications, so it won't surprise you to hear that while it rains, you rarely need an umbrella.
Similarly, the coffee stereotype is something that amuses me to no end. I find it hard to believe Seattle is any more caffeine-addled than other U.S. cities. And while there may be a coffee shop on every corner, it's not so dissimilar to New York, Chicago or any other major city when it's usually a Starbucks on every block.
We do have our coffee fanatics. I have a coworker that can expound for hours on the virtues of vacuum coffee presses. While that isn't my cup of Joe, it illustrates that coffee is treated by many as something more like wine. People who enjoy subtle differences in flavors and so forth.
I don't think that's only a Seattle thing, though I think we have Seattle-based Starbucks to blame (and, if you like coffee, thank) for taking to the masses. It's nearly impossible to imagine a nation where the only choice is to grab a can of Folgers and brew it up.
I am surprised, though, as more and more people have started to prefer "artisan" coffee that the bulk of the country seems to start and end with Starbucks as the go-to coffee of choice. I realize it may be a convenience since you cannot throw a rock without hitting at least one Starbucks.
I have noticed here in Seattle that many people have taken to the Third Wave for choosing their coffees. Essentially, this is an effort to appeal to sustainably farmed and traded high quality coffee that comes in smaller batches.
I realize that not everyone wants a "gourmet" cup of coffee and, to be honest, I'll be the first one to grab a cup of gas station coffee on a road trip. So please don't read this as snobbery as much as this: if you're willing to pay Starbucks prices, why not try some others that might surprise you. Some suggestions:
Stumptown Coffee Roasters - They do not, from what I can tell, have Internet retailing, but if you live in Seattle, Portland or (for real) New York City, you can get your hands on it. Honestly, if you're a Starbucks fan, this is the one to take the Pepsi Challenge with. The grocery store across the street from me carries most of their wares and I have yet to try any of their stuff and not enjoy it.
Middle Fork Roasters - While Stumptown is based in Portland, OR, Middle Fork is right here in Seattle. A smaller operation, but they do have online retail. I've been drinking the Middle Fork Blend pretty frequently. This is coffee for coffee's sake. They don't have a coffeehouse that I know of in town. No one selling you CDs or travel mugs. Just coffee to drink.
Blue Bottle Coffee - Based in Oakland, CA, this might be the best of all of these. If you're not in The San Francisco Bay Area or New York, you will not find a retail location, though they do have online ordering. I recommend the Chiapas blend, which doesn't seem to be on the site at the moment (the Oaxaca sounds like it's reasonably similar). My wife and I had a friend in from Dallas who is a coffee fan and she not only burned through our bag of Chiapas, she went home and ordered a bunch more.
Holualoa Kona Coffee Company - OK, this one is more expensive. The official growing area for Kona coffee is about 40 square miles. Most often you will see Kona blends which will be a small amount of coffee from Kona with mostly stuff from Latin America. But if you want a cup of American grown and roasted coffee, you need 100% Kona beans. Maui makes some coffee, too, but from what I can gather, Kona is the more sought-after stuff. It is incredibly smooth, but because of the small growing area, it is virtually impossible to produce in quantities large enough for major coffee roasters (e.g. Starbucks). That also makes it expensive. But hey... if you like coffee, you almost owe it to yourself to try. I toured this plantation and sampled their coffees. All were great and, the small operations of the plantation let you get close to the action. I'm sure other Kona roasters offer similar experiences, so check them out. And, like I said... you're supporting the good ol' USA when you buy.
Any suggestions you have? I love try new ones...
Seattle, comes with more than a few stereotypes. The first question after "So, you don't mind the rain?" is usually, "Gee, but you guys have some great coffee, huh?"
Stereotypes are rooted in truth. It cannot be disputed that it rains here with some frequency. But stereotypes are also oversimplifications, so it won't surprise you to hear that while it rains, you rarely need an umbrella.
Similarly, the coffee stereotype is something that amuses me to no end. I find it hard to believe Seattle is any more caffeine-addled than other U.S. cities. And while there may be a coffee shop on every corner, it's not so dissimilar to New York, Chicago or any other major city when it's usually a Starbucks on every block.
We do have our coffee fanatics. I have a coworker that can expound for hours on the virtues of vacuum coffee presses. While that isn't my cup of Joe, it illustrates that coffee is treated by many as something more like wine. People who enjoy subtle differences in flavors and so forth.
I don't think that's only a Seattle thing, though I think we have Seattle-based Starbucks to blame (and, if you like coffee, thank) for taking to the masses. It's nearly impossible to imagine a nation where the only choice is to grab a can of Folgers and brew it up.
I am surprised, though, as more and more people have started to prefer "artisan" coffee that the bulk of the country seems to start and end with Starbucks as the go-to coffee of choice. I realize it may be a convenience since you cannot throw a rock without hitting at least one Starbucks.
I have noticed here in Seattle that many people have taken to the Third Wave for choosing their coffees. Essentially, this is an effort to appeal to sustainably farmed and traded high quality coffee that comes in smaller batches.
I realize that not everyone wants a "gourmet" cup of coffee and, to be honest, I'll be the first one to grab a cup of gas station coffee on a road trip. So please don't read this as snobbery as much as this: if you're willing to pay Starbucks prices, why not try some others that might surprise you. Some suggestions:
Stumptown Coffee Roasters - They do not, from what I can tell, have Internet retailing, but if you live in Seattle, Portland or (for real) New York City, you can get your hands on it. Honestly, if you're a Starbucks fan, this is the one to take the Pepsi Challenge with. The grocery store across the street from me carries most of their wares and I have yet to try any of their stuff and not enjoy it.
Middle Fork Roasters - While Stumptown is based in Portland, OR, Middle Fork is right here in Seattle. A smaller operation, but they do have online retail. I've been drinking the Middle Fork Blend pretty frequently. This is coffee for coffee's sake. They don't have a coffeehouse that I know of in town. No one selling you CDs or travel mugs. Just coffee to drink.
Blue Bottle Coffee - Based in Oakland, CA, this might be the best of all of these. If you're not in The San Francisco Bay Area or New York, you will not find a retail location, though they do have online ordering. I recommend the Chiapas blend, which doesn't seem to be on the site at the moment (the Oaxaca sounds like it's reasonably similar). My wife and I had a friend in from Dallas who is a coffee fan and she not only burned through our bag of Chiapas, she went home and ordered a bunch more.
Holualoa Kona Coffee Company - OK, this one is more expensive. The official growing area for Kona coffee is about 40 square miles. Most often you will see Kona blends which will be a small amount of coffee from Kona with mostly stuff from Latin America. But if you want a cup of American grown and roasted coffee, you need 100% Kona beans. Maui makes some coffee, too, but from what I can gather, Kona is the more sought-after stuff. It is incredibly smooth, but because of the small growing area, it is virtually impossible to produce in quantities large enough for major coffee roasters (e.g. Starbucks). That also makes it expensive. But hey... if you like coffee, you almost owe it to yourself to try. I toured this plantation and sampled their coffees. All were great and, the small operations of the plantation let you get close to the action. I'm sure other Kona roasters offer similar experiences, so check them out. And, like I said... you're supporting the good ol' USA when you buy.
Any suggestions you have? I love try new ones...
Friday, December 16, 2011
The Best Albums of 2011
I can't even pretend I listened to every new album worth hearing this year. And now that some of the "official" lists are out, I realize that any list I make here is likely going to be terribly incomplete. For instance, you won't see Adele's 21 on this list, despite the fact that it's apparently amazing.
I did listen to a lot, though. And let's be clear... this was an underwhelming year. I'm pretty sure even if I included a certain British chanteuse and Bon Iver, this list would still be a struggle. Unlike last year, which was a veritable cornucopia of bad-ass tunes, this year swung and missed more often than not.
Anyhow, let's try this. As always, second opinions provided so you don't think I'm nuts.
Honorable mentions
Jay-Z & Kanye West - Watch the Throne - You know, it's good. My issue was more that both of these guys are so much more than good. Maybe I need to chill out, but I kept feeling this could have been so much more.
Youth Lagoon - The Year of Hibernation - My hat's off to this kid. I heard this was made in an Idaho bedroom... and it sounds like it. In all the right ways.
The War on Drugs - Slave Ambient - Thisclose to being on the list. The suite of songs surrounding "Come to the City" is arguably one of the year's best stretches of album.
The list
10) Foo Fighters - Wasting Light
Second opinion: Spin
So few bands just know how to rock the hell out and Dave Grohl's band continues to do things that a whole faction of politicos in his home state of Virginia probably wants to make illegal. From the first chords of "Bridge is Burning," it's all vintage Foos, but without anything to prove. Perhaps it's the reintegration of Pat Smear into the mix, because while this band has hit more than it's missed, this is the first disc since The Colour and the the Shape - Smear's last effort with the band - that hit this hard.
9) Mogwai - Hardcore Will Never Die, But You Will
Second Opinion: Los Angeles Times
I was sitting at a 4th of July party when first track "White Noise" came on. The song is anything but. It was one of those moments where conversation had to be stopped to inquire just what this was. And months later, I'm still listening to it... and the rest of the album. Layered with themes and beats, every song brings a new scene to mind and propels itself into the next. It's fantastic work.
8) Death Cab for Cutie - Codes and Keys
Second opinion: Entertainment Weekly
If they're going to make us wait until who knows when for a new Postal Service album, at least the Bellingham, WA outfit that is Death Cab can put out music that makes the wait oh-so-much-more bearable. It's more of a slow burn than a lot of their recent previous work... no New Year, no one possessing your heart. But it's a slow burn that goes deep. Opening with "Home is Fire" is strong, but things are still rolling by the time "Underneath the Sycamore" comes along. And between - and after - is all good melodies, strong lyrics and many moments that glisten.
7) The Pains of Being Pure at Heart - Belong
Second Opinion: Pitchfork
I have a friend who has seen this band live and says they suck. And I believe her. I remember seeing Smashing Pumpkins and being completely underwhelmed. How could a band that sounds so good in the studio just... suck live? I haven't seen POBPAH live, so I don't know if it's true. But I did hear this album. Produced by Flood and Alan Moulder - who happened to make the Pumpkins sound good on CD - Belong changes the game for this band. The indie shoegaze of the band's debut pales in comparison to this. It's an argument for your favorite indie band to work with a real producer. The opening title track just kills. And for the next four songs, it stays that good. Songs that we didn't know this band could write... much less perform. If an album took my by surprise this year, it's this one.
6) Coldplay - Mylo Xyloto
Second opinion: Spin
It had to happen: a Coldplay album not superior to its predecessor. From such great heights, this is still a great listen. So many experiments work, including "Princess of China" with Rihanna. "Paradise" is everything a Coldplay track should be. What's missing? Hard to say, though it feels like urgency. On every Coldplay disc to date, especially Viva la Vida, it seemed like the band wasn't just trying new things and trying to be the best... it felt like they thought it was important. This album is hardly going through the motions; indeed, it features some of the more ambitious experimentations the band has tried. It's more that, for the first time, some of the tricks don't charm. Would that every band's slight misfire could be as good as this.
5) Radiohead - The King of Limbs
Second Opinion: The Guardian
An odd album, to be sure, but the patient reap giant rewards. The morose front end of the album challenges listeners to more than any material since Kid A. "Morning Mr. Magpie" manages to keep that front end energetic despite Thom Yorke's contention that his melody has been stolen. It comes back in "Little by Little," which is, plainly vintage Radiohead. What blows you away are the closers, though. "Give Up the Ghost" is a gift that keeps on giving, revealing new sides to itself with every listen. Final track "Seperator," though, is the true killer. Nearly a perfect song, it proved to be the album's most provocative, building speculation of a quick follow-up album (sadly wrong), but doing what any good performance should do: leave you wanting more.
4) Lady Gaga - Born this Way
Second Opinion: NME
Not even gonna apologize for this one. Not one bit. Why don't more pop artists take risks? Take the artist part to heart? Find me another pop artists that could make a song like "Judas" - easily one of the year's best singles - and do it in a way that isn't just there to shock. DJs had to be salivating over the possibilities with a song like "Schie?e", which shouldn't work but does. Sure, everyone got tired of "Edge of Glory," but it's the songs that didn't get the airplay where Gaga gets to push the limits. Dare I say this had the feel of an album that foretells great things? On The Fame Monster she made defining pop. Here, she tries every weapon in the arsenal with more success than not, but the question is what does she do with the lessons learned? Hopefully, it something epic.
3) Fleet Foxes - Helplessness Blues
Second Opinion: Pitchfork
I'm sorry, but this is what Mumford & Sons don't do. Introspective to points of pain, Fleet Foxes build on their previous work with gloriously beautiful complicated music. You go from the pulsating "Battery Kinzie" to songs like "The Cascades" that just shimmer. Of course the harmonies remain, but the musicianship reaches new heights. Every piece works to a grand extent.
2) Mates of State - Mountaintops
Second Opinion: NPR
The album opens with "Palomino," which, as far as I'm concerned is the single best song of the year. Everything this band does well is done more than well on this track and the tracks that follow are easily the best we've heard from this two-piece... and they've hit some nice highs before. On previous albums, there were always standout tracks, but never have these Mates put together such a complete set of songs. Wearing the challenges of marriages on their sleeves on a song like "Mistakes," synthing it up on "Sway" or putting the dance beat in "Maracas," every move the band makes seems to work. I was lucky enough to see this band live in LA this year and the power of their material just explodes off the stage... something that this album captures to a great degree.
1) Washed Out - Within and Without
Second Opinion: Pitchfork
A choir director I once sang with used to say that there was nothing more amazing than a big group singing very softly. That's not quite what's happening here, but the feeling you get is the same: intense despite the volume. At times, the album goes almost ambient, rocking you into a state of marvelous contendedness. Other times, it lulls you... into a dark corner. I still don't know what the lyrics to this album are. And I don't care. The voices might as well be instruments. No other album comes close to evoking the kind of response that this one does. And, to top it off, it has the year's hottest album cover (look it up and you tell me).
I did listen to a lot, though. And let's be clear... this was an underwhelming year. I'm pretty sure even if I included a certain British chanteuse and Bon Iver, this list would still be a struggle. Unlike last year, which was a veritable cornucopia of bad-ass tunes, this year swung and missed more often than not.
Anyhow, let's try this. As always, second opinions provided so you don't think I'm nuts.
Honorable mentions
Jay-Z & Kanye West - Watch the Throne - You know, it's good. My issue was more that both of these guys are so much more than good. Maybe I need to chill out, but I kept feeling this could have been so much more.
Youth Lagoon - The Year of Hibernation - My hat's off to this kid. I heard this was made in an Idaho bedroom... and it sounds like it. In all the right ways.
The War on Drugs - Slave Ambient - Thisclose to being on the list. The suite of songs surrounding "Come to the City" is arguably one of the year's best stretches of album.
The list
10) Foo Fighters - Wasting Light
Second opinion: Spin
So few bands just know how to rock the hell out and Dave Grohl's band continues to do things that a whole faction of politicos in his home state of Virginia probably wants to make illegal. From the first chords of "Bridge is Burning," it's all vintage Foos, but without anything to prove. Perhaps it's the reintegration of Pat Smear into the mix, because while this band has hit more than it's missed, this is the first disc since The Colour and the the Shape - Smear's last effort with the band - that hit this hard.
9) Mogwai - Hardcore Will Never Die, But You Will
Second Opinion: Los Angeles Times
I was sitting at a 4th of July party when first track "White Noise" came on. The song is anything but. It was one of those moments where conversation had to be stopped to inquire just what this was. And months later, I'm still listening to it... and the rest of the album. Layered with themes and beats, every song brings a new scene to mind and propels itself into the next. It's fantastic work.
8) Death Cab for Cutie - Codes and Keys
Second opinion: Entertainment Weekly
If they're going to make us wait until who knows when for a new Postal Service album, at least the Bellingham, WA outfit that is Death Cab can put out music that makes the wait oh-so-much-more bearable. It's more of a slow burn than a lot of their recent previous work... no New Year, no one possessing your heart. But it's a slow burn that goes deep. Opening with "Home is Fire" is strong, but things are still rolling by the time "Underneath the Sycamore" comes along. And between - and after - is all good melodies, strong lyrics and many moments that glisten.
7) The Pains of Being Pure at Heart - Belong
Second Opinion: Pitchfork
I have a friend who has seen this band live and says they suck. And I believe her. I remember seeing Smashing Pumpkins and being completely underwhelmed. How could a band that sounds so good in the studio just... suck live? I haven't seen POBPAH live, so I don't know if it's true. But I did hear this album. Produced by Flood and Alan Moulder - who happened to make the Pumpkins sound good on CD - Belong changes the game for this band. The indie shoegaze of the band's debut pales in comparison to this. It's an argument for your favorite indie band to work with a real producer. The opening title track just kills. And for the next four songs, it stays that good. Songs that we didn't know this band could write... much less perform. If an album took my by surprise this year, it's this one.
6) Coldplay - Mylo Xyloto
Second opinion: Spin
It had to happen: a Coldplay album not superior to its predecessor. From such great heights, this is still a great listen. So many experiments work, including "Princess of China" with Rihanna. "Paradise" is everything a Coldplay track should be. What's missing? Hard to say, though it feels like urgency. On every Coldplay disc to date, especially Viva la Vida, it seemed like the band wasn't just trying new things and trying to be the best... it felt like they thought it was important. This album is hardly going through the motions; indeed, it features some of the more ambitious experimentations the band has tried. It's more that, for the first time, some of the tricks don't charm. Would that every band's slight misfire could be as good as this.
5) Radiohead - The King of Limbs
Second Opinion: The Guardian
An odd album, to be sure, but the patient reap giant rewards. The morose front end of the album challenges listeners to more than any material since Kid A. "Morning Mr. Magpie" manages to keep that front end energetic despite Thom Yorke's contention that his melody has been stolen. It comes back in "Little by Little," which is, plainly vintage Radiohead. What blows you away are the closers, though. "Give Up the Ghost" is a gift that keeps on giving, revealing new sides to itself with every listen. Final track "Seperator," though, is the true killer. Nearly a perfect song, it proved to be the album's most provocative, building speculation of a quick follow-up album (sadly wrong), but doing what any good performance should do: leave you wanting more.
4) Lady Gaga - Born this Way
Second Opinion: NME
Not even gonna apologize for this one. Not one bit. Why don't more pop artists take risks? Take the artist part to heart? Find me another pop artists that could make a song like "Judas" - easily one of the year's best singles - and do it in a way that isn't just there to shock. DJs had to be salivating over the possibilities with a song like "Schie?e", which shouldn't work but does. Sure, everyone got tired of "Edge of Glory," but it's the songs that didn't get the airplay where Gaga gets to push the limits. Dare I say this had the feel of an album that foretells great things? On The Fame Monster she made defining pop. Here, she tries every weapon in the arsenal with more success than not, but the question is what does she do with the lessons learned? Hopefully, it something epic.
3) Fleet Foxes - Helplessness Blues
Second Opinion: Pitchfork
I'm sorry, but this is what Mumford & Sons don't do. Introspective to points of pain, Fleet Foxes build on their previous work with gloriously beautiful complicated music. You go from the pulsating "Battery Kinzie" to songs like "The Cascades" that just shimmer. Of course the harmonies remain, but the musicianship reaches new heights. Every piece works to a grand extent.
2) Mates of State - Mountaintops
Second Opinion: NPR
The album opens with "Palomino," which, as far as I'm concerned is the single best song of the year. Everything this band does well is done more than well on this track and the tracks that follow are easily the best we've heard from this two-piece... and they've hit some nice highs before. On previous albums, there were always standout tracks, but never have these Mates put together such a complete set of songs. Wearing the challenges of marriages on their sleeves on a song like "Mistakes," synthing it up on "Sway" or putting the dance beat in "Maracas," every move the band makes seems to work. I was lucky enough to see this band live in LA this year and the power of their material just explodes off the stage... something that this album captures to a great degree.
1) Washed Out - Within and Without
Second Opinion: Pitchfork
A choir director I once sang with used to say that there was nothing more amazing than a big group singing very softly. That's not quite what's happening here, but the feeling you get is the same: intense despite the volume. At times, the album goes almost ambient, rocking you into a state of marvelous contendedness. Other times, it lulls you... into a dark corner. I still don't know what the lyrics to this album are. And I don't care. The voices might as well be instruments. No other album comes close to evoking the kind of response that this one does. And, to top it off, it has the year's hottest album cover (look it up and you tell me).
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Sounds of the Season 2011
Last year, the annual holiday mix was solid, but, if you ask me, it was a bit pedestrian. Quality of song was pretty high, but there was something missing. Neither the mariachi horns from the Killers nor the fast-paced fun of Julian Casablancas really put the oomph into the holiday. And, as usual, finding Hanukkah songs was a freakin' challenge. One iffy Hanukkah song. I was concerned the supply of great modern holiday indie rock was gone.
Friends, I am pleased to say this year's holiday mix is stellar. The dance beat is back in Christmas. You want Hanukkah? We have Hanukkah. Let's dive in!
1) The LeeVees - "How do You Spell Channukkahh?" - The guy with the rich low voice from Guster put this out with some friends a few years ago. And it's a damn fine way to start a holiday mix. An entertaining song (as all good Hanukkah songs should be) about a topic that even the best of Jews has to tackle. Add in driving guitars and clever lyrics and we're off to a good start.
2) Best Coast & Waaves - "Got Something for You" - I honestly just wanted Best Coast on here. Plus this is a fun song and doesn't Zooey Deschanel have all the retro fun (more on her later). Indie bands doing cool things? Like.
3) Weezer - "O Come all Ye Faithful" - Probably the most straightforward song on here this year. It sounds like Weezer singing a Christmas carol. Which, hey, isn't that bad a thing.
4) Guster - "Tiny Tree Christmas" - A nice little ditty in two movements. Good sleigh-riding music.
5) Kanye West - "Christmas in Harlem" - Maybe we did tap out rock. We have barely touched rap! And thankfully, Yeezy comes through with this big-beat track all about how it goes across 110th St. It needs to be noted that any song that rhymes "Hanukkah" with "yarmulke" and also suggestively discusses giving a girlfriend "the hot chocolate" meets pretty much all the criteria for getting onto this mix.
6) The Raveonettes - "Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)" - Synthed out trancey amazingness from Sweden.
7) Matisyahu - "Miracle" - All the years of not finding an amazing Hanukkah song and here's the low-hanging fruit I must have walked past. Nice beats and lyrics (a cool video if you feel like looking it up online).
8) The Killers - "A Great Big Sled" - This band is the gift that keeps on giving for Christmas songs (though the one they put out this year was kinda meh). This song was nearly on the mix last year but I didn't want to have two Killers songs in one year.
9) Jimmy Eat World - "12/23/95" - Here's where we start to come down from such great heights. Time to slow it down. This song, a bit melancholy, just glistens, though. Let's you down easy.
10) She & Him - "I'll Be Home for Christmas" - The latest salvo in the Zooey Deschanel effort for World Domination is her Christmas album with M. Ward. This is a fine little retro song. Though, given the interesting collab this year Danger Mouse had with Jack White and Norah Jones, I'd like to use this space to propose that She & Him have a musical challenge with Jack White and Norah Jones. That could be something.
11) Coldplay - "Christmas Lights" - Say what you want... it's a pretty song.
12) Mogwai - "Christmas Song" - An instrumental send-off from the Scottish post-punkers.
All in all, I think this is the most listenable mix since the 2008 edition of the mix. Arguably, it's the highest overall song quality of any of the ones I've put together. Want it? All are available (even legally) at your online music purveyor of choice...
Friends, I am pleased to say this year's holiday mix is stellar. The dance beat is back in Christmas. You want Hanukkah? We have Hanukkah. Let's dive in!
1) The LeeVees - "How do You Spell Channukkahh?" - The guy with the rich low voice from Guster put this out with some friends a few years ago. And it's a damn fine way to start a holiday mix. An entertaining song (as all good Hanukkah songs should be) about a topic that even the best of Jews has to tackle. Add in driving guitars and clever lyrics and we're off to a good start.
2) Best Coast & Waaves - "Got Something for You" - I honestly just wanted Best Coast on here. Plus this is a fun song and doesn't Zooey Deschanel have all the retro fun (more on her later). Indie bands doing cool things? Like.
3) Weezer - "O Come all Ye Faithful" - Probably the most straightforward song on here this year. It sounds like Weezer singing a Christmas carol. Which, hey, isn't that bad a thing.
4) Guster - "Tiny Tree Christmas" - A nice little ditty in two movements. Good sleigh-riding music.
5) Kanye West - "Christmas in Harlem" - Maybe we did tap out rock. We have barely touched rap! And thankfully, Yeezy comes through with this big-beat track all about how it goes across 110th St. It needs to be noted that any song that rhymes "Hanukkah" with "yarmulke" and also suggestively discusses giving a girlfriend "the hot chocolate" meets pretty much all the criteria for getting onto this mix.
6) The Raveonettes - "Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)" - Synthed out trancey amazingness from Sweden.
7) Matisyahu - "Miracle" - All the years of not finding an amazing Hanukkah song and here's the low-hanging fruit I must have walked past. Nice beats and lyrics (a cool video if you feel like looking it up online).
8) The Killers - "A Great Big Sled" - This band is the gift that keeps on giving for Christmas songs (though the one they put out this year was kinda meh). This song was nearly on the mix last year but I didn't want to have two Killers songs in one year.
9) Jimmy Eat World - "12/23/95" - Here's where we start to come down from such great heights. Time to slow it down. This song, a bit melancholy, just glistens, though. Let's you down easy.
10) She & Him - "I'll Be Home for Christmas" - The latest salvo in the Zooey Deschanel effort for World Domination is her Christmas album with M. Ward. This is a fine little retro song. Though, given the interesting collab this year Danger Mouse had with Jack White and Norah Jones, I'd like to use this space to propose that She & Him have a musical challenge with Jack White and Norah Jones. That could be something.
11) Coldplay - "Christmas Lights" - Say what you want... it's a pretty song.
12) Mogwai - "Christmas Song" - An instrumental send-off from the Scottish post-punkers.
All in all, I think this is the most listenable mix since the 2008 edition of the mix. Arguably, it's the highest overall song quality of any of the ones I've put together. Want it? All are available (even legally) at your online music purveyor of choice...
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The Perils of Being Sure of Trends
I work in an industry where I am surrounded by new media "experts." I might even consider myself one sometimes. With new Facebook changes, ongoing mobile device/tablet wars and the like, just about anyone with an opinion is telling us what the future is... occasionally charging money for the privilege of hearing about it.
I've been to two social media conferences now. Both have been excellent, but one way they have been excellent has been the "who really knows?" attitude that hangs over most discussions. Someone tried something that worked. It may or may not be easy to duplicate. Or it won't be. Who knows?
Recent observations, though, seem to indicate an upswing in sweeping statements that not only could be way off base, but actually (I think) threaten the collective credibility of all of us "experts."
I think this started around the launch of the iPad. At the time, tablets were not new to market (though kudos to Apple for making it seem like they were) and story after story, from CNET to Mashable, spoke of the revolution that was literally at hand. The concept of the "Post PC Era" entered parlance (where it remains).
Yet, here we are... tablets have certainly gained market share, but I'm guessing the bulk of people reading this blog aren't doing so on a tablet. I'll wager that the vast bulk of tablet users don't even write at length on their iPads. If anything, tablets are filling a very comfortable niche in extending the reach of content that was once "chained" to wherever a computer was. I just took an iPad to a trade show and it was incredible.It changed the way we worked at this show from previous years. All the materials I couldn't pack were neatly visible on a small LCD screen. But I still went back to my hotel to work on my laptop every night.
My favorite claim at the launch was that the iPad would mark the end of the Amazon Kindle, possibly the first time anyone with credibility ever posited that a device that cost three times as much to buy would supplant the unbelievably functional market leader. I haven't done a study, but it seems Amazon is doing just fine with the Kindle since the launch of the iPad. In my travels, after an initial burst of people reading books on iPads, I'm back to seeing more Kindles on my flights when it comes to book reading. Maybe it's because people can hold a Kindle in one hand while sipping their beverage with the other. Who knows? The point is this: lots of new media leaders went full bore with the "game changer" language. Today, their statements have to be viewed not only as hyperbole, but in many cases, flat out wrong.
I cannot abide this. People trust folks in our field to offer good counsel on trends. But if the perception of all of us is simply that we hype up the shiny new toys we get to play with instead of stepping back and thinking about price points, function and good ol' human behaviors, we risk cheapening our advice to the point of being viewed as hucksters.
I wish I could say the lessons have been learned. They have not.
The launch of Google+ was roughly treated roughly like the discovery of a new vaccine by many. Expert after expert heralded the launch in big "it's a new world" terms. People did things I don't want to speculate on to get an invite to Google+ and you couldn't turn anywhere without reading that this could be "the beginning of the end" for Facebook.
This drama has yet to enter its final act, but a few months into Google's foray into social media, the only reason people aren't calling it a failure is because it simply has Google's backing.
Let's recap: the most robust social network, Facebook, a free service boasting the better part of a billion users... the service that change after change still has people logging in like crazy... with a name that is a verb (you've "Facebooked" someone), is going to meet its end because Google (also a verb) introduced a social network?
As I blogged three months ago, I wasn't buying it.
Today, I still don't think Google+ will be anything more than an also-ran. At least if it's trying to be Facebook. As Mark Zuckerberg (or Jesse Eisenberg) said, if they had invented Facebook, they would have invented Facebook.
The missing pieces in discussions were users. The reason I don't think people are going to adopt Google+ en masse is because the people that make their online experiences fun are on Facebook. Users will go where the other users are. And, at least for most individuals, that place remains Facebook.
We talk and talk and talk about how we're in an era of individualization in media. How each person makes his or her own choices about how to consume media. Yet, how many "experts" treat us all like a single body when making their sweeping statements about social media trends or the new tech toy?
There has also been shortsightedness on the part of many in how the Google+/Facebook discussion is framed. A key factor many cite for an eventual migration from Facebook to Google+ is privacy, primarily that perception that Facebook shares personal data.
A couple things: 1) Free services absolutely share some personal information... incidentally, only the info that we provided to them in the first place. But these are businesses and need money. In good news, I think most people know that and would have the same apprehensions about Google. Yet, this was missing in the discussion, for the most part.
More notable to me is 2) security on Google appears to have gaping vulnerabilities that no one is talking about.
I have asked it plainly - to people who should know - and no one has answered me with anything other than "gee... maybe?"
If I accidentally click on a link in a Google+ post that deploys malware - as happens every day to someone on Facebook and Twitter and results in spam posts - just how much access has the malware given the hacker? What I mean is, I try my darndest not to click on links that could be spam/malware. But, on Facebook or Twitter, the worst case is spam posts that annoy me and my friends and can easily be fixed.
But my Google+ account? Yeah, that site is linked to my Gmail. And Google docs. THIS BLOG. And any other Google product. So, does the right hack suddenly have access to my Gmail? You know, the one where I have a lot of personal stuff? Can that person fire off an email to whoever they want from my Gmail?
It's bad that I don't have a clear answer, but it's worse that the people who should be asking this sort of question aren't.
Just today, Mashable had an article about how new apps were coming to Google+. You cannot convince me that not a one of them won't be used for ill means. Where was the concern?
In the meantime, it will keep on happening. Few have even touched a Kindle Fire and already, speculation is rampant about what it does to the market. Maybe what it does is allow folks who don't use a tablet every day to feel good about paying for a tablet. But no one is asking about the new touch screen Kindle readers. Now I have to use two hands to turn a page? I don't know... it sounds like it might not go as expected, but until I see users reaction, I cannot make the judgment.
The next few years will certainly bring more changes in the landscape. But we need to stop being cheerleaders for the tech brand of our choice. If we're in an age of citizen journalism, we need to ask the tough questions or risk losing our credibility as counselors. And we need to get comfortable with not knowing what device or service will "win."
We need to keep the focus on audiences and reaching them the ways they want to be reached. New media, sure... but old-school PR thinking.
I've been to two social media conferences now. Both have been excellent, but one way they have been excellent has been the "who really knows?" attitude that hangs over most discussions. Someone tried something that worked. It may or may not be easy to duplicate. Or it won't be. Who knows?
Recent observations, though, seem to indicate an upswing in sweeping statements that not only could be way off base, but actually (I think) threaten the collective credibility of all of us "experts."
I think this started around the launch of the iPad. At the time, tablets were not new to market (though kudos to Apple for making it seem like they were) and story after story, from CNET to Mashable, spoke of the revolution that was literally at hand. The concept of the "Post PC Era" entered parlance (where it remains).
Yet, here we are... tablets have certainly gained market share, but I'm guessing the bulk of people reading this blog aren't doing so on a tablet. I'll wager that the vast bulk of tablet users don't even write at length on their iPads. If anything, tablets are filling a very comfortable niche in extending the reach of content that was once "chained" to wherever a computer was. I just took an iPad to a trade show and it was incredible.It changed the way we worked at this show from previous years. All the materials I couldn't pack were neatly visible on a small LCD screen. But I still went back to my hotel to work on my laptop every night.
My favorite claim at the launch was that the iPad would mark the end of the Amazon Kindle, possibly the first time anyone with credibility ever posited that a device that cost three times as much to buy would supplant the unbelievably functional market leader. I haven't done a study, but it seems Amazon is doing just fine with the Kindle since the launch of the iPad. In my travels, after an initial burst of people reading books on iPads, I'm back to seeing more Kindles on my flights when it comes to book reading. Maybe it's because people can hold a Kindle in one hand while sipping their beverage with the other. Who knows? The point is this: lots of new media leaders went full bore with the "game changer" language. Today, their statements have to be viewed not only as hyperbole, but in many cases, flat out wrong.
I cannot abide this. People trust folks in our field to offer good counsel on trends. But if the perception of all of us is simply that we hype up the shiny new toys we get to play with instead of stepping back and thinking about price points, function and good ol' human behaviors, we risk cheapening our advice to the point of being viewed as hucksters.
I wish I could say the lessons have been learned. They have not.
The launch of Google+ was roughly treated roughly like the discovery of a new vaccine by many. Expert after expert heralded the launch in big "it's a new world" terms. People did things I don't want to speculate on to get an invite to Google+ and you couldn't turn anywhere without reading that this could be "the beginning of the end" for Facebook.
This drama has yet to enter its final act, but a few months into Google's foray into social media, the only reason people aren't calling it a failure is because it simply has Google's backing.
Let's recap: the most robust social network, Facebook, a free service boasting the better part of a billion users... the service that change after change still has people logging in like crazy... with a name that is a verb (you've "Facebooked" someone), is going to meet its end because Google (also a verb) introduced a social network?
As I blogged three months ago, I wasn't buying it.
Today, I still don't think Google+ will be anything more than an also-ran. At least if it's trying to be Facebook. As Mark Zuckerberg (or Jesse Eisenberg) said, if they had invented Facebook, they would have invented Facebook.
The missing pieces in discussions were users. The reason I don't think people are going to adopt Google+ en masse is because the people that make their online experiences fun are on Facebook. Users will go where the other users are. And, at least for most individuals, that place remains Facebook.
We talk and talk and talk about how we're in an era of individualization in media. How each person makes his or her own choices about how to consume media. Yet, how many "experts" treat us all like a single body when making their sweeping statements about social media trends or the new tech toy?
There has also been shortsightedness on the part of many in how the Google+/Facebook discussion is framed. A key factor many cite for an eventual migration from Facebook to Google+ is privacy, primarily that perception that Facebook shares personal data.
A couple things: 1) Free services absolutely share some personal information... incidentally, only the info that we provided to them in the first place. But these are businesses and need money. In good news, I think most people know that and would have the same apprehensions about Google. Yet, this was missing in the discussion, for the most part.
More notable to me is 2) security on Google appears to have gaping vulnerabilities that no one is talking about.
I have asked it plainly - to people who should know - and no one has answered me with anything other than "gee... maybe?"
If I accidentally click on a link in a Google+ post that deploys malware - as happens every day to someone on Facebook and Twitter and results in spam posts - just how much access has the malware given the hacker? What I mean is, I try my darndest not to click on links that could be spam/malware. But, on Facebook or Twitter, the worst case is spam posts that annoy me and my friends and can easily be fixed.
But my Google+ account? Yeah, that site is linked to my Gmail. And Google docs. THIS BLOG. And any other Google product. So, does the right hack suddenly have access to my Gmail? You know, the one where I have a lot of personal stuff? Can that person fire off an email to whoever they want from my Gmail?
It's bad that I don't have a clear answer, but it's worse that the people who should be asking this sort of question aren't.
Just today, Mashable had an article about how new apps were coming to Google+. You cannot convince me that not a one of them won't be used for ill means. Where was the concern?
In the meantime, it will keep on happening. Few have even touched a Kindle Fire and already, speculation is rampant about what it does to the market. Maybe what it does is allow folks who don't use a tablet every day to feel good about paying for a tablet. But no one is asking about the new touch screen Kindle readers. Now I have to use two hands to turn a page? I don't know... it sounds like it might not go as expected, but until I see users reaction, I cannot make the judgment.
The next few years will certainly bring more changes in the landscape. But we need to stop being cheerleaders for the tech brand of our choice. If we're in an age of citizen journalism, we need to ask the tough questions or risk losing our credibility as counselors. And we need to get comfortable with not knowing what device or service will "win."
We need to keep the focus on audiences and reaching them the ways they want to be reached. New media, sure... but old-school PR thinking.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Occupy Smarter Methods
The thing about the "Occupy" demonstrations - and really all of the Tea Party demonstrations as well - is that they make a lot of noise... but what do they do?
To some extent, I salute participants on both sides. I may agree and disagree with portions of their views (or entirely... just depends), but I can hardly argue that both groups' efforts have done much to raise my awareness of their issues. I've done some of the background reading on their topics as a result.
The thing is... well, a number of things.
Let's hit the obvious: lots of ignorant people in each group. For every well-read, thoughtful person, it seems, at least as the news shows via interviews, there's someone who has a lot of hyperbole and no grasp of how the world actually works. A stack of good intentions doesn't change the government, nor does it make a dent in our economy. This is at its worst when people oversimplify.
Prime example: the obsession of some Tea Party members (at least that's how they identify) with illegal immigration. I have yet to hear one person discuss how their wishes to deport everyone would affect produce prices at Safeway. Truth is, if you're not ready to discuss that outcome as part of your view, then I'm not going to give you the time of day.
That, however, is an easy problem to spot and I think (hope?) many Americans can see right through the ignorant opinions and say "Now, now... it's not that simple."
The bigger issue for me, and it is on grand display with the Occupy rallies, is that other than getting some attention, I see no tangible outcome.
A few years ago, a friend was considering becoming a vegetarian based on some moral beliefs. I have some pretty strong opinions on this topic. Personally, as a closeted hippie, I'm content to bow to the will of nature. And nature gave me stomach acids that are only used to digest meat. But I digress...
This friend wanted to be a vegetarian to make a point. She felt that factory farms and other practices were destroying a healthy food chain. That the way we treat food animals is cruel.
She is right. But she wasn't going to change a thing by not eating meat.
The thing is, I am one of about 7 billion people on the planet. If you want a boycott to work, you need some serious numbers.
What I mean is, if I'm an industrial provider of chicken and I have 35% of the chicken eating market share, I want to maintain - or increase - that share. And I will cut whatever corners I legally can to do so. If you stop eating chicken, that's fine and dandy, but in the universe of chicken eaters, I still have 35% market share and am making money. If anything, you stopping to eat my product helps me lower overhead costs, because I need to produce ever-so-slightly less chicken.
If, instead of becoming a vegetarian, you start eating only locally grown, organic chicken - free range birds that got to "live like a chicken" as Michael Pollan would say - well... now you're giving market share to a competitor.
And if my market starts to demand I do business a different way in order to stay competitive, I'm going to have to start raising chickens differently.
In a capitalist system, which despite what some say we most definitely still have, that is how you forge change.
So, as we head back to our Occupy demonstrators, my question is: why are they talking about a new way of life instead of living it? If you think a corporation acts unethically, then take the time to figure out how not to support that company with your dollars. If you don't like the way the banks conduct themselves... get a new bank. If you don't agree with the hedge fund folks, don't hand your money to them to invest.
It seems people love to talk but get hung up on the action part of things. Big surprise, I know, but this is why the protests ring hollow for me, well-intentioned as they may be.
It's become cliche, but Gandhi was right: you must be the change you want to see in the world.
Nearly two years ago, my wife and I made some simple changes to the way we eat and have been heartened to hear we're not the only ones. It hasn't changed the world... yet. Change takes time. But I can take heart knowing that the local farmers, brewers and ranchers are getting our help in maintaining their businesses as we give them our dollars.
I can assure you even though I am just one person, those folks appreciate my dollars more than if I were to march for change while scarfing down a big-industry burger.
Simply put: we have a right to freely assemble and demonstrate. But if we want to see change in our world, we cannot simply ask companies to change or for governments to intervene.
We need to make the changes we want on our own and let the world deal with the outcomes.
To some extent, I salute participants on both sides. I may agree and disagree with portions of their views (or entirely... just depends), but I can hardly argue that both groups' efforts have done much to raise my awareness of their issues. I've done some of the background reading on their topics as a result.
The thing is... well, a number of things.
Let's hit the obvious: lots of ignorant people in each group. For every well-read, thoughtful person, it seems, at least as the news shows via interviews, there's someone who has a lot of hyperbole and no grasp of how the world actually works. A stack of good intentions doesn't change the government, nor does it make a dent in our economy. This is at its worst when people oversimplify.
Prime example: the obsession of some Tea Party members (at least that's how they identify) with illegal immigration. I have yet to hear one person discuss how their wishes to deport everyone would affect produce prices at Safeway. Truth is, if you're not ready to discuss that outcome as part of your view, then I'm not going to give you the time of day.
That, however, is an easy problem to spot and I think (hope?) many Americans can see right through the ignorant opinions and say "Now, now... it's not that simple."
The bigger issue for me, and it is on grand display with the Occupy rallies, is that other than getting some attention, I see no tangible outcome.
A few years ago, a friend was considering becoming a vegetarian based on some moral beliefs. I have some pretty strong opinions on this topic. Personally, as a closeted hippie, I'm content to bow to the will of nature. And nature gave me stomach acids that are only used to digest meat. But I digress...
This friend wanted to be a vegetarian to make a point. She felt that factory farms and other practices were destroying a healthy food chain. That the way we treat food animals is cruel.
She is right. But she wasn't going to change a thing by not eating meat.
The thing is, I am one of about 7 billion people on the planet. If you want a boycott to work, you need some serious numbers.
What I mean is, if I'm an industrial provider of chicken and I have 35% of the chicken eating market share, I want to maintain - or increase - that share. And I will cut whatever corners I legally can to do so. If you stop eating chicken, that's fine and dandy, but in the universe of chicken eaters, I still have 35% market share and am making money. If anything, you stopping to eat my product helps me lower overhead costs, because I need to produce ever-so-slightly less chicken.
If, instead of becoming a vegetarian, you start eating only locally grown, organic chicken - free range birds that got to "live like a chicken" as Michael Pollan would say - well... now you're giving market share to a competitor.
And if my market starts to demand I do business a different way in order to stay competitive, I'm going to have to start raising chickens differently.
In a capitalist system, which despite what some say we most definitely still have, that is how you forge change.
So, as we head back to our Occupy demonstrators, my question is: why are they talking about a new way of life instead of living it? If you think a corporation acts unethically, then take the time to figure out how not to support that company with your dollars. If you don't like the way the banks conduct themselves... get a new bank. If you don't agree with the hedge fund folks, don't hand your money to them to invest.
It seems people love to talk but get hung up on the action part of things. Big surprise, I know, but this is why the protests ring hollow for me, well-intentioned as they may be.
It's become cliche, but Gandhi was right: you must be the change you want to see in the world.
Nearly two years ago, my wife and I made some simple changes to the way we eat and have been heartened to hear we're not the only ones. It hasn't changed the world... yet. Change takes time. But I can take heart knowing that the local farmers, brewers and ranchers are getting our help in maintaining their businesses as we give them our dollars.
I can assure you even though I am just one person, those folks appreciate my dollars more than if I were to march for change while scarfing down a big-industry burger.
Simply put: we have a right to freely assemble and demonstrate. But if we want to see change in our world, we cannot simply ask companies to change or for governments to intervene.
We need to make the changes we want on our own and let the world deal with the outcomes.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Old School Thinking
Did you know me back in high school or college? If so... yeah, sorry about that.
In all seriousness, I'm sure we all have moments from the past we cherish and some we wish had panned out differently. What I think is more interesting is how things evolve. Or, in some cases, fail to.
Just figure: I graduated high school in 1997 and college four years later. Some of the folks I shared a walk to "Pomp & Circumstance" with haven't been in touch with me for at least 10 years. I don't even know these people, at least.
How much have you changed in 10 years? Judging by how much I have changed, probably more than a little.
Yet, when I see a Facebook update from a friend from high school or spot a once-familiar face on a trip back to where I grew up, I seem to not give the person that credit.
And it's not fair.
What I mean is, I might hear something from my mom about such-and-such who I went to high school with who's now doing this-or-that-with-so-and-so. It can be things that are good or bad, but I process the information with whatever impression I had of the person in question when I last saw him or her regularly. I might think something like "Oh yeah, he was always that kind of guy..." or "She always does that..."
Truth is... if I haven't had a substantial conversation with the person in 10-15 years, how should I know?
I love Facebook for oh-so-many reasons, not the least of which is that it helps me keep up with the busy lives of some of my closest friends like never before. But for the more acquaintance-type people I see on there, it has made me realize the fallacy of the way I think about people.
An example... a friend from back in the day posted a major relationship change several months back involving another person from that same era of life. I immediately reacted to the situation as though it was more than a decade ago.
I had to step back. Looking at myself, I am so much different now than I was then (hopefully better for it, too). Why couldn't I give this other person that benefit of the doubt? I was reacting like the person in question had been frozen in time and never changed. Not cool, on my part.
It's things like this that keep me wary of ever going to a high school or college reunion. I have kept in very close touch with a group of people, and others to a lesser extent. But I don't fancy enjoying spending time with people where we all assume we're pretty much the same people we knew at graduation.
I hope this makes sense... or that this has happened to you (has it? I'm nuts? OK.)
I do think it's fascinating how our lives and interests evolve... friends converge and diverge, often for no other reasons than people start living lives that head in different directions. Yet, I think there is something in us that wants us to feel like we "know" all those who were close to us at a certain time.
If so, I'm resolving to stop it.
In all seriousness, I'm sure we all have moments from the past we cherish and some we wish had panned out differently. What I think is more interesting is how things evolve. Or, in some cases, fail to.
Just figure: I graduated high school in 1997 and college four years later. Some of the folks I shared a walk to "Pomp & Circumstance" with haven't been in touch with me for at least 10 years. I don't even know these people, at least.
How much have you changed in 10 years? Judging by how much I have changed, probably more than a little.
Yet, when I see a Facebook update from a friend from high school or spot a once-familiar face on a trip back to where I grew up, I seem to not give the person that credit.
And it's not fair.
What I mean is, I might hear something from my mom about such-and-such who I went to high school with who's now doing this-or-that-with-so-and-so. It can be things that are good or bad, but I process the information with whatever impression I had of the person in question when I last saw him or her regularly. I might think something like "Oh yeah, he was always that kind of guy..." or "She always does that..."
Truth is... if I haven't had a substantial conversation with the person in 10-15 years, how should I know?
I love Facebook for oh-so-many reasons, not the least of which is that it helps me keep up with the busy lives of some of my closest friends like never before. But for the more acquaintance-type people I see on there, it has made me realize the fallacy of the way I think about people.
An example... a friend from back in the day posted a major relationship change several months back involving another person from that same era of life. I immediately reacted to the situation as though it was more than a decade ago.
I had to step back. Looking at myself, I am so much different now than I was then (hopefully better for it, too). Why couldn't I give this other person that benefit of the doubt? I was reacting like the person in question had been frozen in time and never changed. Not cool, on my part.
It's things like this that keep me wary of ever going to a high school or college reunion. I have kept in very close touch with a group of people, and others to a lesser extent. But I don't fancy enjoying spending time with people where we all assume we're pretty much the same people we knew at graduation.
I hope this makes sense... or that this has happened to you (has it? I'm nuts? OK.)
I do think it's fascinating how our lives and interests evolve... friends converge and diverge, often for no other reasons than people start living lives that head in different directions. Yet, I think there is something in us that wants us to feel like we "know" all those who were close to us at a certain time.
If so, I'm resolving to stop it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)