The other night (more like a week ago now, but I fell asleep when I originally started writing and never finished) I got to pondering, as I often do, and on this particular night I was thinking about the concept of "the one" or "the girl/guy of someone's dreams". I opted not to go down the logic brain "that's such a futile pursuit, statistically" path, and instead pondered the human element of it. The why of it isn't hard to figure out. People are dreamers, by and large. We have these ideals, these conceptualizations of what each of us defines as perfect. No matter how unrealistic, we often cling to these as though life could not continue without them. What I was more thinking about was how those desires change over time. How would you characterize it? As my mid twenties will be turning to my late twenties sooner rather than later, it's easy to succumb to anxiety over such matters from time to time. While I am at a good place in my life right now, and I firmly believe that if nothing in my life changed that I could continue on with the status quo and still be quite content, there's still the white elephant in the room, the "don't you want a Bonnie for your Clyde?" Sure, wouldn't we all? But what I think varies from individual to individual is how strong that desire to find "the one" is, how shaken one's belief becomes that the person exists, and, ultimately, how much is a person going to temper his/her expectations and standards to satiate that desire and to fill whatever void feels like it needs to be filled?
The biggest element to this is, of course, time. We all are steadily inching closer to our deaths with each passing second. We all have aspirations and things we want to experience and achieve before that moment comes. For many folks, whether it be a true desire or simply a biological instinct, that includes having and rearing offspring. That, of course, has the greatest time element to it of all things. Taking that out of the equation, though, life really isn't so short. In fact, it's quite long, and we have a tremendous amount of time to pursue all of our desires with far fewer restrictions than we think have, as I believe many of those are self-imposed. Yes, we change as we age, but to say that "things won't be the same" or "I won't feel the same way" are really just weak excuses. Of course things would be different; we exist in an environment that is constantly evolving around us. That does not mean that different is bad or that it prohibits continued enjoyment out of one's pursuits just because some arbitrary age milestone was attained. Even as physical limitations begin to play a role, we have the flexibility to shape how our lives change and mold that change in a manner that best suits what we feel is optimal. The more you really start to assess where these time constraints come from and where the barriers are forged, the more you tend to discover they come from within.
Now, the above is probably almost universally applicable, but it doesn't mean that it solves anything for most people. That's why people ultimately do temper their expectations with what they look for in a partner. Perhaps at the beginning of this crusade "the one" looks a certain way, shares from a list of interests, has certain personality characteristics, is at a certain point in his/her academic or professional career, etc. In time, maybe the suitable age range to date widens a little bit, and that PhD in particle physics who also competes in triathlons, shares the same favorite movies, and also wants to retire to the Swiss Alps morphs into someone who merely has a job and is pleasant. It's a bit different for everyone on how much they will compromise on and how long they are willing to stare father time in the face without blinking. Is it worse to be alone or to settle? Where's the balance? What's the best shade of grey?
Well, let's go completely outside of the box and throw away "the one" and replace it with "the all". The answer to the "either or" question is not the "either" nor the "or". It's impossible to meet one person that fulfills every single aspect of perfection through one's self's eyes. Knowing that, why try? Why set yourself up for disappointment? Why project impossible expectations onto the people you come into contact with? What good reason is there for doing that? It can't be found in one person, but I believe it can be found in all people. It can be found in a lifetime. It can be found if we are willing to open our eyes, but more importantly, open our minds to the possibility. Learning to love globally, to cherish the best in folks, to not project one person's characteristics onto another, to find the good qualities, the qualities we feel are best in a person, and to store it and take it to heart, that is where the ability to do this lies. It's a state of pure appreciation, unhindered by jealousy, immune to so many of the other pitfalls associated the more conventional approach of singular passion. My feeling is it is a much more positive approach to living, not only in the manner it can help foster positive relationships with others, but also in the sense of fulfillment and appreciation within. I think it's a wonderful thing to be able to admire individual characteristics in all sorts of different individuals without looking for all of those things in one person. While I'd never name names in this, you can believe there are people's characteristics that I deeply love or admire, and I could rattle them off. I can sit here and say "Jane Doe has absolutely beautiful lips", "Sarah Doe has the most wonderful and inspiring outlook on life", "John Doe has remarkable artistic ability", "Doris Doe is a truly wonderful parent", "I love Debra Doe's hair", "Joseph Doe's work ethic and dedication is admirable", etc. I can do that and honestly feel very fortunate that I have shared pieces of my life with these people, and I can collect all of those things that I love and commit them to that lifetime collection. It's something that I don't think I would have ever imagined myself doing, but now that I look at it like that, I find it an interesting exercise.
Here's the thing that I realized, though. I was not the first person to think this in some sort of incarnation. In the car, it dawned on me that another individual did something like this in a song. When Justin Pierre of Motion City Soundtrack was asked about his song Antonia, he revealed that the song was not about a person, but a collection of people, although many of the items were inspired by then drummer Tony (appropriate given the name of the song). That Pierre takes these quirks, traits, and interests of actual people, attributes them to one individual, and then presents it in a manner such that listeners probably believe that the song is based on an actual person goes to show that the exercise that I discussed above is one that is not out of the realm of possibility. This is why Motion City Soundtrack is a band that has kept me a fan over the past 10 years, despite me not necessarily listening to them much anymore or enjoying their latest album. Justin manages to capture a lot of beauty and emotion in unconventional ways. Below is the song Antonia, which is off their third full length album, Even If It Kills Me, which I think is easily their most underappreciated album. I think you could make a pretty strong argument that it's the best album of their discography lyrically, and the music is still in line enough with their signature sound from their first two albums. Ultimately, it's my second favorite album of theirs, which it probably took me three or four years to get to that point. I'm glad I did develop a further and further appreciation for the album and for Justin Pierre on EIIKM, and perhaps you could say I may have even filed away something for my own personal Antonia in the process.
While I need to finish off some work this evening, my need for catharsis has trumped my need for finishing the task at hand and getting a good night's sleep. Autumn is upon us, evidenced by the abundance of pumpkin everything and myriad of comments about the weather. It's the most polarizing season for me - I very much feel it is the greatest time of year while simultaneously fighting off the psychological ghosts and ghouls that accompany me this time of the year. By definition, one would call this seasonal affective disorder, but this... this is different (as most people with seasonal affective disorder would probably claim, I am well aware). I assert this is not a case of denial because I am so forthright with my emotions, and over the past couple of years, I have developed a far greater awareness as it relates to my moods and how they are connected with the feeling side of me instead of the thinking side of me. For years I have known why autumn impacts me so; the problem extends far beyond five years ago, but five autumns ago saw the catalyst that brought everything to the forefront, and each subsequent autumn has further contributed to the difficulty waiting to confront me anew each September.
Why is it that autumn impacts me so? Well, it's the season that evokes the most emotion from me by far, which is always very trying for me. It is the time of year that coincides with all of my most vivid memories. Very nearly all of my greatest emotional occurrences fall within this timeframe, both positive and negative, and when you combine that with the changing weather and very distinct imagery, it's a sensory assault only further accelerating the journey into yet another period of days turning to weeks turning to months trying to stave off negativity and subscribe to the "this year will be different" line of thinking. In an attempt to condense the explosion of emotions into a nice, succinct package to at least partially explain the background psychology of the season for me, I'll say that all of my best and worst memories call autumn its home. This starts from childhood, where the memories more center around unadulterated joy - tag in the backyard was most fun in the cooler weather, the World Series was the height of my sports excitement each year as I rooted on my Yankees, and as I got a bit older, my own baseball season commenced this time of year. Halloween was the time of year you could be anyone in the whole world, a truly wondrous proposition for a child. And while we feel sorrow as children, I believe we don't have the intellectual capacity to have comprehend the depth of sorrow in our youthful years. It's actually quite interesting to think about: joy is often associated with something that is pure and simple, whereas sadness is one of the most complex emotions we can try to describe.
Later on in life is where the complexity came along, and all the notable timestamps fall within this pesky three month time period of the year. The numbers on the calendar could be any numbers, but we're wired to notice trends, and when the trend is that these experiences all occur within a certain window, it can be difficult to try and convince the brain that the window is not to blame. It was autumn where I found out what was wrong with me had a name, the day that I could no longer run away from the fact that the way I felt wasn't going away on its own. Relationships in my life have been few and far between, but they have commenced and ceased in or very very close to autumn. The greatest joy and the most excruciating pain have occurred in these months. Having your heart become consumed by the deluge of love violently cascading without any regard to what is in its path is unlike any other feeling, as is the feeling when that tide sweeps back out to sea, taking far more back with it in the process. I have seen my identity lost and found in this season. I have had my hope renewed, my confidence shattered, my emotions boil and freeze, I've hurt so badly because of things that I've had happen, things that I've seen, and perhaps most of all because of decisions I had to make. I've had my heart broken and I have broken someone else's heart. I've fought and fought, and I've also been so exhausted that I felt like giving up. I've found some of my greatest friends in the entire world in this time of year, including my dearest friend of all. I've discovered the music that has shaped much of the more recent past of my life. These memories all come rushing back along with the cool air. They force their ways to the forefront of my awareness with the playback of a song or the sound of a child's gleeful scream. As humans, we all have to deal with these sensations, but it's each individual's ability to cope with the sensations that define how much of an impact and what sort of impact they have on us, and unfortunately, for me, I was never endowed with much of a mechanism for tackling such issues.
I think heading into this autumn I had more conviction around the belief that this year would be different. Things in my life have been going pretty well, and I am happier than I have been in years, all things considered. Now, whether it be coincidence or if there's truly something to this "season of change", it of course has to happen that life would just throw some curveballs out there just to get me thinking. I think I have maneuvered that path okay so far, but that seed of doubt has been planted, the cool weather has rolled back in, and I have felt the anxiety rising within me, particularly having spent a week out of town from work in a place that houses some of the most vivid memories of mine (as fate would have it, the route from the hotel I was staying at to the office took me down a road that was the same route taken to go to a Halloween bonfire back on someone's farmland back in 2008). In contemplating this all, though, and thinking about my desire to try and make this autumn a great one to "break the cycle", it occurred to me that maybe that wasn't the best course of action, and perhaps a futile one, in all actuality. The more I thought, and the more I listened to some music, the more I felt that I had it all wrong. So often I think we have such black and white approaches to dealing with sorrow: either run from it or embrace it as our identity. Now, maybe what I was proposing was not to run from it, more to try and shove it aside and replace it with something else. Other times we wallow in our gloom because it identifies us. What I thought about, though, is to try and do neither of those things, to just try to see and understand the beauty in sorrow. I don't know that there is ever any "conquering" it, but some form of coexistence where it makes you appreciate and understand the role sorrow plays in the broader gamut of all human emotion is perhaps the best way to try and approach it. We don't try to appreciate that we feel sad, but we appreciate that we feel, period.
All in all, I don't know if this approach will be a beneficial one or not. It's certainly well-intentioned, and it seems to make sense to me (now), but I could just be digging myself a hole and no one would ever think to tell me as I could be just any other grave digger this spooky time of year, right? I do believe it's worth a shot, though. I cannot run from the seasons, rather than trying to run against the current, perhaps this is a way of riding with the current. Autumn is the season of change, so I may as well try something new!
I'm back posting yet another music related entry in what's been a pretty good string of few weeks for me as it pertains to music. While I've been following along with the U.S. Open on the sports side of things and edited a few photos from Europe, music has been the topic I am most driven to write about (along with some really long, philosophical e-mails, but you don't get to see those). Sabaton Open Air, otherwise known as Rockstad: Falun, is a metal festival held in the hometown of Sabaton, a small city of less than 40,000 in Sweden. This was my third festival in Europe, smaller than Amphi festival, and about the same size, perhaps marginally larger than Mittelalterlich Phantasie Spectaculum. I actually quite enjoyed the size of the festival: it was big enough so that there was enough energy pulsing around the festival grounds later in the day and into the evening, but it was small enough that you would leave one day, then come back the next day and run into the new friends you made the day prior. This is probably the greatest aspect of the event for me, personally, as I met some absolutely wonderful people, and had I only talked to them for several minutes only to never see them again, I would have missed out on some friendships and social interaction.
The festival is a three day event primarily focused on power metal, although there were other genres represented at the event. Admittedly, this was a festival that, band-wise, probably could have been consolidated into a two day event; there are other festivals out there with a much deeper ticket in two days than this festival had in all three. The positive element to this is it was less pressure to constantly be trying to see one band or another on different stages or running around the grounds constantly; it allowed you to socialize a bit more freely, which I think was definitely positive. The festival grounds were very easy to navigate, and I can say that the event definitely sort of built up with each day. All three days had spectacular headlining performances, but the lineups just got a bit deeper later in the week. I would say there is probably a small bit of bias resulting from the particular type of metal I enjoy most, but my sentiments were generally echoed by the folks I met at the event, so I don't feel like I am stepping too far out of line.
In terms of the actual performances, I'll go over the bands that were the highlights for me by day. While it's becoming nearly impossible to rank live performances I've seen given the ever increasing list of bands I've seen and the different elements said bands bring to the table in different settings, I think if I was forced to pick a top 10, 3 of them would be from this festival, and Arkona is already cemented in my top 5, so they're a fourth that performed at this event.
Day 1: Eternal of Sweden got the event off to a good start; I was pleased with their performance as an opening band. These guys were heavy metal throwback, like they'd been playing for a couple of decades, or they wanted to recapture the glory days of yesteryear and formed a band playing that style of music. Probably not something I'd listen to all of the time, but I thought they were just fine for the beginning of the event. After what I felt was a bit of lull, I got re-engaged once Revamp came on. Unfortunately, there were some technical difficulties and a long delay that set their start time back a good 20 minutes, which maybe killed the atmosphere in the crowd a bit, but after a somewhat flat first couple of songs, they really brought the energy back in a big way as they progressed through the set. Floor Jansen sounded great, and the band was pretty nice when I saw them signing autographs, too. I actually got to chat with Henk a little bit after the festivities were done for the evening, too. He's a funny guy. Following Revamp was Arkona, whom I never have enough good things to say about. Arkona had never performed in Sweden before, and leading up to the event, I was quite surprised to hear how many people had never heard of them. I was wearing the shirt I purchased on their 2011 North American tour and talking them up the entire day. Some might say this is a bad move, because in the event others don't like them as much as I do, you make your recommendations look bad, but this is Arkona, and they never disappoint. Surely enough, the crowd went wild for them. They played a great mix of songs, starting of with some new material from Yav and throwing in many of their popular staples such as "Slavsia, Rus", "Stenka na Stenku", and "Yarilo". You haven't really lived until you've participated in a Wall of Death to Stenka na Stenku, to be quite honest. I'll cut short gushing about my favorite Russians and their amazing music, though. I was thrilled to see them make the front page of the local Swedish newspaper, though, and was quick to post it online for all to see. I'll write an artist spotlight on them some day, I'm sure. Finntroll was the last big highlight of the evening for me. I was pleasantly surprised with their performance, as I was underwhelmed when I saw them in the U.S. It seems to me that was more a reflection of some poor sound that night, though, as they sounded great at Rockstad. They definitely had the most raucous fans of the entire festival, too, which was a bit annoying in the 30 minutes leading up to the show, as I literally could not hear people next to me, but made for a fun show while they were playing. The last band of the night, Amaranthe, was not my thing, but they were decent, catchy, and I met two friends that I spent the most time with in Falun before that show, so they were a highlight due to that, if not the music.
Day 2: Admittedly, I spent a good chunk of the afternoon up at the beer tent socializing and staying out of the rain, as it rained quite a bit the first two days, but I can definitely say that as background music went, the opening few bands definitely surpassed the opening few bands from Thursday. The three highlights of the day for me, though, were definitely Amorphis, Masterplan, and Rhapsody of Fire. Amorphis I had never really listened to prior to coming to Rockstad, as I don't listen to a whole lot of progressive, but they definitely put on a good performance and made me interested in listening to them more following the festival. Masterplan is a band that I listened to sparingly in the past, admittedly. I do enjoy their music, but the vocals are just underwhelming to me. I just always felt I'd rather listen to other power metal bands where I thought the vocals added more, other things equal. That said, I do love me some Crimson Rider, and their live performance was definitely enjoyable. I left Amorphis on the mainstage early to be up front for Masterplan, which was really more just to be very proactive to ensure I'd be up front for Rhapsody of Fire. Ironically enough, after waiting through almost all of Testament's 90 minute set, which I wasn't too disappointed in not seeing since I'm not a fan of thrash, it was just too cold and wet, and I was too hungry, so I relinquished my front and center spot for food and temporary warmth. The outcome suited me just fine, as I both filled my belly and ran into my friends, so we shared a beer and still got a good spot for Rhapsody of Fire. Now, if you haven't listened to Rhapsody of Fire, prepare for an epic journey (don't worry, I didn't go too hard on this one). As symphonic power metal goes, it doesn't get much better than these Italian metal gods. Fabio Lione is on the short list of best male vocalists I have seen. He sounds great on their albums and was even better live. The atmosphere was electric during their performance. The crowd engagement was good with Fabio pulling a page out of Freddie Mercury's book to see if the crowd could hang with him on vocals. We got everything from the most fast, melodic, epic songs all the way down to a sweet ballad. Top 10 band performance + awesome friends = perfect night cap.
Day 3: The big day got off to an auspicious start by virtue of the fact that it wasn't overcast from the get-go. Similar to day 2, the first few bands were spent more socializing and less being attentive to the actual music, but I had to ensure that we saw Twilight Force. I had listened to them in advance of coming to Europe and was looking forward to seeing them live. There's no such thing as too much cheesy power metal, after all. Complete with tales of adventure, abundant chorus, melodic riffs, the good old high range metal vocals (although sometimes far too forced to the point they don't come off well at all), and nifty elf outfits, Twilight Force was definitely higher at the top of the list of my favorites of the entire festival. You could tell they were having fun up there, too. They're a local act from Borlänge, just 20 minutes away by train, so it had to be a great moment for them. Following Twilight Force was Battle Beast, another band I hadn't listened to prior to arriving. I really enjoyed their set. Noora Louhimo has a bit of a throwback, raspy heavy metal vocal style, but as a female vocalist, it served as a very nice contrast to the more prevalent operatic type vocals in the power and symphonic metal scenes. That's not to say she doesn't have the voice for the cleaner vocals, because she flaunts those as well. Her variety and uniqueness complement an excellent instrumental group to create a great band overall. Later in the evening, I had to make a decision; ultimately I decided to hold my spot on the rail for Van Canto and forego being able to watch Týr and having a less than optimal spot for Sabaton. I knew that I may never see Van Canto again, and no one out there is like Van Canto whatsoever. I'll see Týr open for Eluveitie, and Sabaton, while not having seen them at their grandest event, I have seen twice already and will again in October, so I decided to stay up front for the a capella metal band from Germany. It's almost hard to even try and comment on their set because it is so one of a kind. Anything you try to come up with words for to relate to other folks is almost futile because unless they've seen Van Canto, there's nothing else in their bank of experience you can tap into to try and relate it to. What I enjoyed about their set was that they played a lot of original material; obviously their cover songs are what people probably discover and know them for, but for them to come up with original material and go through the creative process like any other band, only without any actual instruments (drums aside), that's pretty neat. Like just think about a jam session with these guys just getting creative with their vocal chords. It's an interesting prospect to ponder on. So, truly, this was a great performance, and I managed to catch a Red Bull can that was thrown into the crowd at the conclusion of their set, which I still have presently (need to decide what to do with it).
Following Van Canto was the apex of the show, and the second of three new performances to make it into my top 10 all time performances I have seen. Of course, because it's their event, Sabaton are going to pull out all the stops and have resources that the other bands won't have access to. I wouldn't try to slight other bands simply because they didn't have fancy firework turrets, pyrotechnics, Caroleans, and the works, but I can't dismiss what Sabaton has done with this event overall. Like I mentioned in the opening, Falun is a very small town, so the fact that Sabaton is a world famous band that came from the tiny, historically mining town, and the fact that they return to their roots every single year and put on their best performance is positively wonderful. It is just one of many ways that Sabaton show what thoughtful, high character guys they really are. As a band that composes lyrics primarily in English, as do many bands because of the ability to reach out to a much wider audience, for Sabaton to be able to come home, interact with the home crowd in Swedish, and to play Carolus Rex, considered by many to be the crown jewel in their discography, entirely in Swedish was a beautiful thing to witness. The Swedes deserve that moment, and it is incredible for Sabaton to give it to them while also accommodating all of the non-Swedish speaking individuals as well. It's all done in true Joakim style, too, good humored, humble, and ever so generous to the fans. They always give back to the fans in some way: bringing folks on stage, Joakim trading his vest with another in the crowd, fan interaction, it's all so kind, and more importantly, it's genuine. I truly do believe there are no nicer guys in all of music. To me, what truly, above all, made this set were the events that transpired in this video:
To witness this was so touching. I have seen so many incredible shows, bands, and performances in the past five years, but there are far, far fewer in number the times where an event is so moving on a much deeper, more profound level. This was one of those select moments for me, something I will never forget, something that will be just as powerful each time I watch it. To me, watching an incredible music performance is second to watching an incredible human performance, which is what I saw that wonderful evening. Furthermore, I really feel that Sabaton are really a good representation and embodiment of Sweden as a whole. I have made the remark, "the only person nicer than a Swede is a drunk Swede". It's a joke, but there is certainly some truth in the statement. Sweden and the folks there were so incredibly friendly, welcoming, and provided such an absolutely incredible environment for me that is beyond words. This is an event, a band, and a country full of people that I will forever cherish.
Ending the blog post on that note seems like a logical stopping point, but the numbers folks in the group have noticed that there's still a third top ten performance I haven't mentioned. Well, Brothers of Metal had the tall order of following Sabaton. People might wonder why Sabaton isn't the last to perform. Well, if they were, they'd never be able to get off the stage. No one expects the last band to top Sabaton, of course, but the only downside is that the lion's share (use of lion in the context of Sweden was intentional) of the crowd leave after Sabaton. That didn't stop Brothers of Metal from putting on a positively killer show. I do want to save a blog post for them, as for a local band to put on the performance they did, it was positively remarkable, and they deserve additional recognition for that. It's unfathomable for me to think about walking down the street to a bar and seeing a band put on the type of performance they did, yet they did it despite having only a fraction of the number of followers as the majority of the bands performing this event. So stay tuned for a post on them in the near future.
To close, I really just have to once more emphasize what an incredible event and experience this was. The music, the atmosphere, the new friends from all over the world, there's nothing else in the world like going to a festival like this, and I am eternally grateful that I had this opportunity and hat Sabaton make an event like this happen. The world is such a vast place with so much to see, I can't say that I know I will ever return to this particular event again because there are only so many vacations one can take in a lifetime, but Sweden is absolutely a country I would love to return to again to be able to see some of the truly lovely people I have met both there and elsewhere in Europe. Jag älskar Sverige!
For this spotlight, I am going to detail a group that I alluded to in my previous post on Orlando Nerd Fest, The Returners. The Returners are a five piece group from Austin that positively blew me away; this was due in part to many factors. To organize my thoughts, I feel it will be more interesting to convey my chronological thought process rather than structure by topic.
My initial reaction right from sound check was that this band was going to bring something big to the table. I was instantly filled with anticipation sheerly by virtue of keyboards and a flute! Given my music tastes, this should come as no surprise. The next thing that caught my eye was the double bass drums. This is where I really started to get excited. Keys and flute suggest some sort of folk or orchestral type arrangements, but double bass can only mean one thing: metal. Following that, I noticed the fretless bass, so my assumption there is that the bassist is going to be quite talented. And, to cap it all off, the guitarist is wielding a seven string guitar. For those of you counting at home, that's five out of five on band members that have me amped up for the performance, and this all before even a single note has emanated from any of the speakers.
After all of this initial anticipation, the event itself didn't disappoint, in fact, it met and exceeded any and all expectations I could have had. If you were to take this band out of this convention room and drop them onto a stage with thousands of people watching, they'd fit perfectly. It was unbelievable. I thought they excelled in so many aspects of their performance, particularly for a group that just formed last year. The musical talent is evident; they can flat out shred. It's the little things, though, the attention to detail, that I felt really made them stand out and created that much more of a lasting impression. There are many bands with a great deal of talent and who can perform in front of an audience, but creating a cohesive setlist with a good flow so that it guides the crowd through a vast gamut of experience and emotion is something that is not quite as easy to do, but the The Returners did a very good job of that, in my estimation. They went loud, they went soft, they picked up the pace and brought it back down, they mixed in vocals with instrumentals, and they did it all with transitions that produced a very good ebb and flow for the entire set (and also within their songs and medleys given the arrangements they created). Staying on the subject of the setlist, too, it was a very diverse, well thought out, and well executed blend of tracks. They hit on crowd favorites, but they really went with some less widely known tracks that I definitely appreciated, Ecco being one of the games that I was really pleasantly surprised to hear. My second favorite song of the set (I'll get to the favorite in a second) was their Star Ocean 2 Medley. I think this song really summarizes all I've commented on quite well, both in terms of musical talent and the thoughtful arrangements. The video doesn't do them justice, as the sound really mutes the bass, but you get the general idea of what they bring to the table.
So, back to my favorite song. All this time I have spoken very little about the vocals of this band, which are perhaps the greatest of their many strengths. Lauren, "The Flute", in addition to being a talented flutist and knowledgable video game enthusiast is a phenomenal opera vocalist. This surprise was spoiled given she opened with a vocal intro for Random Encounter earlier in the day, which is probably a good thing because if I had discovered that along with all of the other astounding revelations about this band all at once, I'd probably have to watch the show from the floor because I wouldn't be able to pick my jaw up off of it. While much of their performance is purely instrumental, Lauren definitely has her moments where she puts the pipes on display, none more so than their cover of Phantom of the Opera. Now, here's the thing, right from the instant I heard the first organ note, my thought is "you don't do Phantom of the Opera unless you know you're going to nail it". I knew Lauren could nail it from her vocals in other songs, but here's where they left the crowd in awe: John, the drummer, absolutely killed it on male vocals. His vocals alone are incredible, but the fact that he can sing like that while playing drums is pretty remarkable. Here's a guy who could never pick up a drumstick again and focus solely on singing if he wanted to, and he'd probably be very successful doing it. If I had to guess, though, he's probably in like 10 different bands because he's a drummer, and that's what drummers do, right? Supply and demand :) Don't take my word for it, though, below is a video. While the song is also in the video of their set linked above, the vocals are barely audible in that video, and in this video you can hear them pretty clearly (albeit with video from the opposite side of the room).
Music aside, the band members were all so incredibly friendly. While I didn't spend an incredibly long time talking to everyone, it was long enough to see how humble they were and very gracious of the support they'd received. I also don't think it would be a stretch to declare Lauren as the nicest person ever. She really is so sweet. So here's a proposition for everyone (yes, all my legions of readers, haha): go to the Facebook Page of The Returners and "Like" them. Let me know in the comments, and I will do a drawing at random for one person that I will give a digital download pre-order for their upcoming album, Immune to Silence (what an awesome name, by the way). Who can argue with free music? Plus, when you factor in the lack of readers, poor distribution of posts on Facebook, and the general laziness of people, you're probably going to end up with like a 50/50 shot to win, so take advantage of the easy numbers game you'll be getting into. Worth a shot, right? The Returners, to me, are a band with limitless potential. They already have talent and performance beyond that of so many acts, and as they spend more and more time together, they will only continue to become more polished, have tighter performances, and expand their repertoire of songs. I am very excited to see what the next chapter holds in their story.
This post comes far too late after the 2014 Orlando Nerd Fest, but I have been traveling and taking care of other pressing issues. I want to take a moment to overview the event and some of the particular high points and reflections on the event and its significance.
To begin, I should probably explain what Orlando Nerd Fest is more explicitly. It is a multi-day event centering mostly around video game music (VGM), while also having some artists, indie game developers, gaming rooms, and vendors at the event. This event is new, and it differs from other conventions in that there is constant music; it is the primary focus rather than just a minor element such as in large conventions like Dragon*Con. I attended two days of the festival, so those are the ones I will be commenting on.
The performers range from rap and nerdcore to metal and many things in between. There were bands big and small, those who were local, those who traveled across the country, and a special group that traveled across the world! The band, you ask? Well, it was Nobuo Uematsu and the Earthbound Papas. For those of you unfamiliar with Uematsu, the man is a legendary composer in the video game world responsible for most of the iconic music.in the Final Fantasy series, among other games. If you want to see an RPG gamer fawn over someone, put that person in a room with Uematsu. His band performed and also did a signing session, where I had my PS2 copy of Final Fantasy X signed by the band. Seeing them really have fun and laugh about how they could have all of the adoring fans do anything they wanted was very entertaining. So yeah, that was a cool experience, and anyone with an appreciation for video game music will understand the influence Uematsu has had in the gaming world.
The following bands were my highlights of the convention, in no particular order (excluding Uematsu, since I mentioned him above):
Eight Bit Disaster: Video game music in the form of a funk rock band from North Carolina. Their music was good, the band members fun and entertaining, and they had a good mix of songs, including some less highly celebrated ones from games such as Dr. Mario. Musically, I thought they definitely deserved a better time slot, for sure. My only question: how can a funk rock band cover video game music and not do something from Toejam and Earl???
Urizen: It's hard to really say enough about this band, as they were a fantastic group to cap off the festivities. Their stage presence without all of the extra-curricular items was very good, and then when you factor in the entire story that they play out with props, machines, and crowd involvement, you've got a heck of a show. Their music is somewhere between electro-rock and electro-metal, as some songs can get a bit harder and feature some aggressive double bass, but all in all, I think they can be diverse and cater to whichever type of crowd they play for. What they also did wonderfully was incorporate other acts from the festival into the performance, having other musicians come and help battle space aliens, for example. The crowd engagement was perhaps the best of the entire event, and fun was had by all.
Critical Hit: Critical Hit is the brainchild of Andrew Gluck (Piano Squall) and Jason Hayes (of Blizzard music acclaim, most notably) and features Hayes along with a host of numerous other professional musicians performing very well done arrangements of video game music. Their sets tend to blend Eastern and Western gaming along with different genres of games and play songs that both appeal to casual gamers and more dedicated fans. With the musical talent they've amassed, it's impossible not to put on an impressive show. While their lineup features some musicians with serious chops, including an award winning concert pianist from the time she was 14, Tina Guo on cello stole this show. Her charisma while playing reigns supreme, and her talent on the cello is just absurd. Expect them to be touring in a city near you next year!
Bit Brigade: A lot of bands play video game music. Bit Brigade plays video games, music. If you want to see a speed run of old favorites such as Legend of Zelda, Megaman, or Castlevania and have it accompanied by some sweet metal music, Bit Brigade is the band for you. Now if we could all only have our own band accompanying us in our gaming sessions. The did Legend of Zelda at the event, and it was a great performance. One of the most impressive things when you actually see them perform is just how little time they get to take it easy through the whole set. It's basically a nonstop dose of gaming and metal for 55 minutes.
The Megas: The Megas are an electro rock band that are unique in that they take the Megaman series music to a new level by borrowing the musical style and adding lyrics pertaining to the game, which is pretty neat. On stage, they sounded great, have spiffy outfits and a good color scheme, and they just came across all around as very polished. If I had to nominate best looking musicians at the event, Tina Guo takes it on the female side and Eric, who does guitars and vocals (who looked like Lleyton Hewitt at the event), takes it for the males. I really enjoyed them, and they reminded me a little bit of a softer, slightly more poppy version of Attention System, one of my favorite local bands from Atlanta.
Schaffer the Darklord: Schaffer the Darklord (or STD, as he is also called) was one of the funniest and most entertaining performers at the event, in my opinion. I am not a fan of rap, or even nerdcore for that matter, but he was funny and engaging enough to win me over. He throws a few more words from the dictionary out there than most other performers I've seen doing nerdcore (which, admittedly, isn't a whole lot), and he really does a great job creating a villainous persona while still coming across as a likable person under the persona.
Killer Robots!: Really, the best thing you can do is click the link. Killer Robots! are the robot version of GWAR. In terms of which set had the most pure fun and insanity, Killer Robots! take the cake. In all honesty, the music, which is surf rock, takes such a back seat solely because the performance itself is so entertaining. The band comes on after a live action movie intro, and pool noodles cut into thirds are distributed into the crowd for the ensuing battle against all sorts of monster, aliens, lobster creatures, and I couldn't even tell you what else. Oh, and your friends...especially your friends.
Random Encounter: The local group featuring one of my favorite instruments, the accordion, put on a great, high energy show. Any group that features Chrono Trigger music in its set list is a winner in my book, and their cover of Frog's theme is one of my favorite covers of a video game song. I had been waiting to see them for a while and just happened to keep missing them when they played a local event, so I was tremendously excited to finally see them, and they didn't disappoint.
The Returners: These folks get their own blog post, so more on them later. Yes, I liked them that much.
Well, there you have it. I can emphatically say that the Orlando Nerd Fest 2014 was a great success, and I can definitely see this as one that continuously grows over the years in both attendance and prestige, because it seems to me the folks putting this on did a good job and the attendees had a real blast.
While I have a seemingly endless amount of things I have still yet to do today and other thoughts and pieces I have been yearning to write but have not done it because of said things, I had to make time for this post. At age 63, Robin Williams is dead, and that is simply something I cannot postpone my thoughts on for another time.
Admittedly, I am not typically one that pays much attention to celebrity deaths. A lot of that is due to being removed from pop culture in general, and there is a component where perhaps I feel the death of a celebrity can be talked about in a manner that is somewhat inappropriate to me. It's obvious why so many people care when a celebrity dies, but it wouldn't be innately right to place a celebrity death above the death of an "average" person. I also don't know how it would feel to be a family member of a deceased celebrity, but I imagine the whole situation being run on the news and talked about by the general public does not make it easy to go through the grieving process. I by no means feel indifferent to celebrity death; a loss of life, no matter who it was nor what the cause, is always a painful thing to someone else, and while as individuals we may never share contact, experiences, or the like, we as people all experience the same emotions. We know what it is to laugh, to cry, the joy of life and the pain of loss. So death, by and large, is a sad event, but one that I don't drastically differentiate based on the person who dies, aside from people close to me in my own life. So what makes the death of Robin Williams different? Why did I drop everything to write about his death and not that of others?
Undeniably, celebrities have touched the lives of so, so, so many people. If they hadn't, they wouldn't be called celebrities. I can't say that Robin Williams moved me on a deeper level than other celebrities or that he has any extraordinarily profound significance on me, personally Of course, it is obvious to say that he touched, many, many lives all over the world, but that does not make him unique relative to other superstars. After seeing the initial reaction of those around me, though, it really accentuated just how loved and just how much of an impact this man had on so many people, and that was primarily due to his ability to make us laugh, and laugh in the purest way. What I mean by that is that to laugh, truly laugh, is an unfiltered expression of joy. To laugh is to, at least momentarily, remove one's self from any negativity and sorrow, to enter a state where everything melts away into happiness, even if only for a second or two. Even in the darkest of times, there is solace in laughter, and though it may be hard to come by in those times, being given the gift of laughter is perhaps the greatest gift one can receive. Indeed, there may be times where when engulfed in a bleak reality, one of unrelenting darkness and misery, that laughter may be all we have, our only reprieve. That is the gift Williams so regularly gave to us all, and all the while, his life may have well been in the blackest of places, illuminated only with his desire to hang on to the laughter, to give this gift to the world, to smile and spread the elation that he may himself never possess again. If this is the case, and only he knew for sure, that desire burned brightly for so many years, but even the brightest flame will dull to a flicker before becoming extinguished, and much to the dismay of all of us, that flame finally burned out.
It may come as a surprise to so many that the man once titled "The Funniest Man Alive" could be possess such sadness that he would take his own life. There are many people with depression, myself included, that know all too well how unsurprising this is, though. The routine putting on a skin that is not your own to fool the world just enough to make it through another day is all too common. And here's what's interesting: there's a key word in that previous sentence. It's "fool". The word fool, as a noun, is used interchangeably with the word jester. As a verb it obviously is used a bit differently, but the job of a fool or a jester is to entertain and to make laugh. Obviously as a verb, to fool is to trick or confuse, but depending on the context, it can also have the entertainment element to it, typically because the manner in which an individual is "fooled" is to the bemusement of onlookers. So when those of us who have depression decide to take on the world again for at least one more day, many times we arm ourselves with humor to fool the world. Perhaps Williams was the best of us all in this regard. And in his death, hopefully Williams gave us yet another gift, maybe almost as valuable as the gift of laughter he gave us in his life provided we as a population are attentive enough to see it, and that is the gift of awareness.
The fact that suicide as the cause of death for the funniest man alive is such a terrible and ironic fate, one most never could have imagined, should draw people's attention to the seriousness of the problem that is mental illness. "If this man, of all people, took his life, then this may be more serious than we imagined". It might be too soon for people to open this dialogue up for discussion, but when a beloved man such as he dies with that affliction being the primary cause, it's hard to imagine this issue going unnoticed. It's my hope that there is awareness generated and that the topic of mental illness does not get pushed to the background. It would be a small bit of solace and great continuing legacy for this incident to go on and become the impetus for change, for more open discussion about the prevalence and severity of mental illness all over and the resources available to help remove the very real and very painful barriers that range from preventing someone from operating at the fullest extent of his/her abilities to being a completely debilitating and crushing weight on a person's daily life. I don't know that this may come out of this all, but I'd like to think I can play some small part by being someone to talk about it. Rest in peace Mr. Williams, and may your death be a means to help save the lives of others.
The time has come, the time for a drink... and a new Alestorm album, and with it, I wanted to write a piece on Alestorm. I have not listened to Sunset on the Golden Age in its entirety yet; it's out in Europe and comes out in two days in the United States. Needless to say, with my enthusiasm for pagan metal combined with my love for pirates and innately pirate-like looks, I am looking forward to sitting down and taking a good listen to the album. For now, though, I am more interested in speaking to both the band in general, and their latest video, a cover of the song Hangover, which I had never heard of before their rendition of it.
First off, let me say this right up front: I don't care if you say the music is all a gimmick. Perhaps it is, but if it was easy, more people would do it. To call it a gimmick is not appropriate, to me, because it diminishes the value of the actual quality of their music; it's awesome, plain and simple. No, the lyrics aren't going to be mistaken for poetry, and there are musicians that can shred better, but don't for one second suggest that these guys aren't talented. The tales Christopher Bowes delivers are fun, and not at all poorly written. In fact, I would say that some of the lyrics are actually pretty clever and make for some good pirate lore. The musicians are all very competent, you have some good guitar solos, and perhaps more importantly, some great keytar solos. Above all else, though, the band is flat out entertaining. Whether it be a concert, the lyrics, a video, or Christopher's various posts, pictures, music side projects (do yourself a favor and look up "Christopher Bowes at the Organ", you'll either think it's ridiculously funny or that I am out of my mind, and in either case, you'd be right), the band never ceases to bring anywhere from amusement to utter hilarity. Quite frankly, I'd say the majority of people who criticize Alestorm are just upset that they can't be highly successful making music that is one of the farthest things from serious possible (make no mistake about it, while the band themselves are a bunch of jokesters and don't take life too seriously, they are very good and dedicated with what they do).
As an extension of the above, I could honestly say that if Alestorm simply continued to replicate their same formula and never tried to do anything remotely different with their music, I would be totally fine with that and love them all the same. While I can appreciate musicians evolving over time, I also think it's absolutely fine to take an approach of "if it's not broken, don't fix it". They have not done that, however, as is evident with their latest album. While they are still the same at their core, Alestorm introduces some guest musicians to the studio for laying down other folk instruments such as violin and flute. From what I have heard of the album, so far too, there is some more variety in the vocals as well. What people are slow to recognize, too, is that innovation with bands is not restricted to just how the music sounds. Alestorm still find new ways to entertain. It's not always the same songs, the same schtick, the same old commentary at concerts. There's always some fun cover or new item being worked on, such as a cover of "In the Navy" by the Village People, or playing a metal cover of the Rugrats theme upon returning for their encore, something that fans will instantly find entertaining and be able to identify with.
This is a good segue into their rendition of Hangover:
When I heard this song for the first time, I couldn't help but spam various people trumpeting the song as my favorite cover ever. From my vantage point, this is a perfect cover. They take a song that the majority of their fans either would not have even heard of or would ordinarily hate, and they make it their own. Now, there has been a fair bit of criticism in the Youtube comments of the video, which, of course, is frequented by a very diverse and well versed group of experts when it comes to music (dripping with sarcasm, in case that didn't come across). To me, this is absurd, and it makes me fear for the upcoming generation of metalheads, as any time I come across a "not brutal enough" comment for music in general, it makes me roll my eyes so hard my vision is blurry for a good 30 minutes. Pertaining to this song, Alestorm shows off some versatility and makes a really catchy, somewhat commercially viable yet still true to metal roots version of a song that loosely fits in the same vein as their general subject matter. My opinion is if you like metal and don't like this song, you're basically trying too hard to be pretentious and not have fun.
Alestorm has been, and remains one of my favorite metal bands. They're one of the first metal bands I really got into; as I mentioned a while back, I am relatively new as it comes to be a metal fan. To me, they are such a great, refreshing mix of characteristics for a band to have in terms of balancing their music, performance, and overall attitude. They're also a good band to get non-metal fans to listen to because, well, who doesn't like pirates? The sad reality is that people are more open minded to something if there is some other socially acceptable or fun reason to entertain something non-mainstream.
July 31st: "Goth things? Nope, too weird for me."
October 31st: "I love this!!!"
Metal: "This is horrible."
Pirate metal: "Pirates!? This is awesome!"
So now, I propose you all raise your tankards to the sky and toast to Alestorm. Long live the heavy metal pirates!
Building. Progress. Growth. Achievement. Humans driven by
ambition identify with these items; they're goals, ideals to achieve. And why
not? Surely it’s better than stagnation, right? Well, let’s go outside of the
box for a moment. Dedication to a pursuit is admirable, absolutely. The desire
to continue to hone one’s talents, to find the motivation to persist no matter
what obstacles interfere, is one that characteristic of many, if not all, of
the people who achieve an elevated level of excellence possess. Some of us are
contrarian, though. Or at least I hope the word is “us”, or else it’s just me. This
is not to say that dedication is a trait I lack, necessarily, but holding it as an ideal is
contrary to the manner in which I think. Let me explain.
Each passing year, there is a greater resignation that life
isn't quite the fairy tale it is made out to be in our younger years. Now, that
is not necessarily a bad thing; there are multiple ways to look at it. Some may
look at the process and consider aging the loss of whimsy and wonder of youth.
Others may consider it not aging, but maturation, and it’s not resignation to a
less than fantastical existence, rather, an appreciation for the little things,
an appreciation that we could not posses in our youth. The reality is somewhere
in between those two, in my estimation. I can recognize this process taking
place, but my thought process is a combatant one. Consequently, the greater
this aging/maturation phenomenon occurs, the greater this contrarian backlash
is for me.
If nothing else, I can fairly say I embrace new experiences.
It’s almost as though I have this list with the goal of checking off as many
unique things as possible, not even because the items on the list seem
particularly enjoyable, but because I can look back on my life and say, “look
at all the things I did”. I can truthfully say that I have enjoyed just about
all of them, and even if I cannot say I enjoyed the experience itself, I enjoy
and appreciate the fact that I had the experience after the fact rather than in
the moment itself. But what does this have to do with everything I wrote before
this? Well, the pursuit of these different experiences can often get in the way
of the building mentality, the tendency to focus in on fewer goals. It’s in
conflict with the notion of settling down a bit and focusing more on the
ordinary beauty of life than the extraordinary beauty of life. One ventures
into the world of practical knowledge and not the world of new sensations or
philosophical knowledge. This is what I fight against more and more the older I
get; the more I feel it would be wiser to plant roots, to cherish the friends
and family I have and the experiences we share, and to focus on that part of my
life, the more I adamantly insist that this is not any sort of way to live
life. I fight back harder and harder. Anyone can do that, but far fewer welcome
the opportunity to develop a greater awareness and understanding of the world,
the entire world, around us. This is where I struggle. This is where I can’t
manage these two very conflicting components of my personality.
Here’s the thing. It’s not as though my ideas are simply to
travel abroad, see the world, and to acquire a greater awareness for the
diversity of this planet. That’s great, but for me, it is not enough, not as
far out there. The learning is great, but not comprehensive. This process
allows for learning of culture, but I feel like I seek something further
beneath the surface. I have these ideas, ideas that previously I found
interesting, but now increasingly seem more and more desirable to pursue. Sure,
I could spend my life building up one person, the person I am and the life I
have today, but how would that compare to experiencing many different lives? At
this point, the key is that traveling is not enough. Moving is not enough,
either. What if one completely changed his/her identity? What if I moved to
Europe, but I was not myself, I did not take my name, and I left my entire past
behind me. It’s not a clean slate, as erasing a white board still tends to
leave marks on the board; this is a new, unadultered slate. Who I am, what I
like, what I am good at, who I knew, they are all part of that last life, not
the new one. What would it be like to live many short lives instead of one long
one? It’s an intriguing notion, to say the least. In this case, I think one
sacrifices depth of learning for breadth of learning.
Likewise, another idea is to live life on the streets. It’s
not just forfeiting the comforts of daily life, it's forfeiting the necessities
of daily life. “You never really understand a person until you consider things
from his point of view … until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”
Homelessness is something no one ever wants to experience. Well, maybe I just
shot a hole in that statement, but how much of a better understanding of the
world could I achieve? The insights I could gain, the observations I could
make, being able to experience the world in a lens that many others don't, this
is fascinating to me. In contrast to the taking a new identity and leaving 100%
of a prior life behind, this process would be slightly different to me, as I envision
it. Here I would want to retain the characteristics that make me, me. I’d want
to see how people treat the “functioning member of society me” relative to the “homeless
me”. At the core, I’d be the same person. On the outside, I would look
different, my perceived worth and use to society would be different, but I’d be
the same. How would people treat me? Would I be met with compassion? Disgust?
Would people be interested in talking to me? How would they look at me? We all
get a sense of how this would go already, because we have all walked by people
living on the streets before. It’s a different story when you're on the
opposite side of the fence, though. File this experiment under the category of
not enjoying an experience while it is occurring, but enjoying the fact that I
did it after the fact.
These are just two of the many thoughts that intrude on my
ability to lead what would be an easier more conventional life. Let me be
clear: I don't want the typical, conventional life. I still cling to the notion
that there is some balance between stability and spontaneity; somehow, some way, it has to be possible, right? I don't feel these ideas are unique. I’d bet
others have thought, and done, some of these things before, maybe for the same
reasons, maybe stemming from an entirely different impetus. It does make me a
bit of a rarity, though. I cannot say if any of these ideas will come to pass,
if the impulses will become any more or less muted than today, if something
even more peculiar transpires, or if this will all become a fleeting memory.
After all, we can never be truly sure if we will even live to see the next day.
The analogy that is often used is taking the worn road or the road less
traveled, and as I sit here, looking at the two, the ever strengthening desire
is to take no road at all and find a new path entirely. There may be others who
also elect not to take a road, but the beauty is that in this case, no two off
road approaches will ever be the same.
That’s right, I am removing myself from the World Wide Web (and Deep Web, for that matter) to nearly the greatest extent I possibly can. I am limiting myself to five minutes online a day for leisure once I find a suitable printer for canvas prints (I cannot find a suitable one of these in the five minute timeframe, of course). In these five minutes, the only thing I am going to allow myself to do is to check the scores of tennis matches, baseball games, and the Stanley Cup Finals, and occasionally to check my e-mails once a day. That’s it, nothing else. I’ll outline the rationale for this below, as there are a number of reasons for it.
First off, this all came to a head with the recent events in dealing with my internet situation. Bright House Networks is my internet provider, and they take the cake when it comes to incompetent internet providers. I have wasted dozens of hours of my life trying to get them to get my service correct, have techs correctly set up equipment, get a static IP configuration, and still it has never worked like I needed it to. I finally got to a point where I was closing in on getting everything set up to meet my I needs. I’ve learned a lot along the way on configuring things myself since no one in their entire company nor my internal IT department know how to do it, and the admin that works remotely is so busy that he’s just not had the time reconfigure his Watchguard since Bright House gave the wrong configuration information in the first place (and I am not allowed to have admin privileges to the equipment; while I could reset it with everything I know, I am not going to do that and possibly get in trouble with them). I spent about three hours the other night tinkering on my own, and as of today, I felt I was going to be able to have everything except my Watchguard set up and actually have wireless internet again. Then, sure enough, Zeus had other plans, and lightning fried my equipment that was plugged into my brand new Tripp surge protection device (screw you, Tripp). Upon further messing around, it appeared that the modem wasn’t fried somehow, rather, just the power cable ceased working. So I went on a trek to get bent over and forced to pay 2000% of the actual cost of a power adapter for the unit. Ordinarily I’d make this purchase online, but given I needed it today, I didn’t have much choice. I finally ended up getting one at Radioshack, or so I thought. I showed the guy exactly what I needed: 2 amps. He “tests one out” and said it lit up, so I was in a hurry and didn’t think much of looking at it myself. I just wanted to get back home and continue another miserable day of work. Well, first off, I left the modem at the store, so I had to drive back, pick it up, and at this point I ordered some Chinese food since I was in no mood to cook. Upon getting home, I ate, and then I was so agitated about everything, the internet, work, and personal life things, that I didn’t even bother getting set back up, I just went to bed for a nap. Three hours later, I wake up around 11:30 and figure I’ll get set up again, and lo and behold, the power adapter is 2.5 amps, not 2, so of course it doesn’t work. It lights up to acknowledge a power source going in, but it will not power the modem correctly. Of course, this is too late to go back to Radioshack, so my only choice is to go to Walmart to buy a temporary modem before Bright House can get me a new one by coming out to the house (I need to lease equipment for them to enable static IP – it’s a Bright House thing, not an actual thing, just one of the many reasons they are a horrible company). I get my router, come home, and then spend the usual 30 minutes on hold before I reach a person at Bright House to give my new MAC address on this modem to, and, sure enough, “the department that can do that is closed”. They open at 8 tomorrow. How convenient, looks like I won’t be able to begin working at 8:00.
So that details my frustration of late. I hate having to work a second job just to get my internet set up the way it needs to be for working from home. I’m over it, and while I don’t have a choice because I need the static IP, it has been the series of events that makes my stomach churn so much that I cannot take it anymore. This is on top of already being sick of not having WiFi. I’m the first to admit I waste entirely too much time online (more on that in a second), but having WiFi enabled me to do two things: access the internet from my laptop, and watch Game of Thrones on my PS3 (this is really the big reason I wanted to get my WiFi set up). Without WiFi, I am limited to working from my desktop in my little home office. Now, you can say, “the internet’s the internet”, and you’d be right, but it’s a psychological thing. I spend my whole day in front of the computer in that room, in that chair, and at a desk. Before, it was enough for me to be able to be online on my laptop in another room and lay on my bed or the couch in a different set of scenery for me to be okay with being in front of a different glowing, soul sucking screen. Not so much anymore, though. I’ve just about had it with being on the computer altogether. This is another contributing factor as to why I haven’t edited my photos of late; I have my personal desktop with my photo editing software, 8 core processor, and IPS monitor in my office, along with my crappy work desktop that is maybe 15% as good as my personal computer. They’re both hooked up at the same desk, as both have wired internet connections and utilize the same dual monitors, so my photo workstation now shares my business workstation, and that has been a psychological deterrent on top of the other psychological deterrents I outlined in a previous entry. But I’m beyond even that now; now I just don’t want to be on the internet at all.
Here’s the other reason for it; I know that I allow it to suck the life out of me. It’s a problem, I don’t manage it well, and I need to cut it out entirely. I resort to the internet to deal with anxiety. I resort to the internet when I am depressed. I resort to the internet when I am bored. I resort to the internet when I want social interaction. I resort to the internet when I want to avoid social interaction. I’m not as bad as many people, but I am far worse off than I want to be, and enough is enough. I thought back to what I did when I wasn’t online so much. There’s been an ebb and flow to my time spent on the internet. Back when I would have considered myself a highly functioning human being, I still spent time online. Prior to 2011, though, I was not even on Facebook. Time spent on the internet was mostly on Reverbnation or other such music sites looking for new, underground music. The only reason I even joined Facebook was that I was going to more and more shows, and people typically don’t like communicating with you via Youtube, last.fm, Reverbnation, or any other source simply to get pictures from a show. So I did it for the convenience, and while I can’t say I regret it, I’d like to get back to the point where the internet is not a means for me to waste my life away. It’s not the internet’s fault, and there’s no guarantee I won’t continue to waste my life away, but I’ll be damned if I keep doing it online. I live in a new city now, and I am reaching the stage of my life where people my age are less interested in doing things with new people and are more focused on spending time with their existing networks of friends and acquaintances. I completely get it, but it doesn’t help me. As such, I resort back to going online to whatever paltry social interaction I can get there, but I’ve reached the point where I would rather be alone and keep myself busy than have such distant social interaction. And you know what? There’s nothing wrong with that. I actually think I will be well served to go out into nature and be alone with my thoughts. I felt as though I was making good psychological progress not too long ago, and I’m seeing it unravel before my very eyes. Anyone knows me knows that I am a fighter, though. I don’t go down easily, and I don’t go down without a fight. I want to get my punches in, and maybe I took a few lately, but it’s my turn to send a few back. One of many analogies for depression I have come up with over the years is being taken down a river in the current. You have to tread water to stay alive and wait for a branch to try and grab onto when the moment is right. When you get that moment, though, you have to take it, and you have to time it right. Lunge for the branch too early or too late, and you just spent all of your energy to miss after biding your time for so long. You have to know when to make that lunge and time it right for you to be successful. I’ve been treading water, and now it’s time to make that lunge. I want to live life again, truly live life, not just live it enough to allow me to drudge through the monotony, and I am going to do it whether people want to do it with me or not.
Despite my 2:00 a.m. drowsiness, I am a bit excited to be taking this step. I hope that people join me, not in giving up the internet, but in staying connected with me through more intimate outlets than the internet. I miss phone calls and texts. I don’t want to make it difficult to get a hold of me, but that’s going to be the only way to do it other than perhaps sending an e-mail. I likely won’t respond to the e-mail, or if I do, it will be a response that takes a minute to type and will likely consist of “what’s your phone number?” as a reply. So, that’s that, and apologies in advance to anyone I upset to the people who will inevitably try to contact me via Facebook at some point only to not get a response because I won’t be on the site any longer. At least there’s documentation here saying that I am doing this, not doing it to ignore you, so please, take your BS internet drama elsewhere :)
Well, no real need for an introduction - the title says it all. I dread Nadal/Djokovic finals. I don't deny the rivalry. I don't deny that they have some scintillating rallies and that they go through spurts where the level of play is remarkable. What I do deny is that they have so many "epic" finals with some of the highest quality matches you'll ever see. That's simply not the case no matter what the sensationalist announcers who have no memory beyond the most recent five matches they've seen as to what is the greatest match they have ever seen.
Here's my biggest qualm: the length of a match does not translate to the caliber of a match. There are a number of reasons for this. One, long rallies do not always equate to good rallies, and two, the length of time for a match does not mean that the entire duration was spent playing. To touch on the first point, long rallies do speak to consistency and endurance. There's no doubt that these men are the two fittest players on tour, and to have these prolonged rallies without making errors is certainly not something to be overlooked. Sometimes there are spectacular points, but other times the points may just be defensive, with no one wanting to take an offensive chance in the rally, so it just keeps going. While each of these players are certainly capable of some good offensive tennis, their primary styles are trying to make the opponent break by playing relentless defense from the back of the court. When you have two guys who won't make as many unforced errors as the rest of the tour quite as quickly, it does lead to longer points. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it isn't, but it's simply repetitive. I completely understand how some may not like watching big servers like John Isner or Ivo Karlovic where the point is typically over in three shots or less. Neither type of match is particularly diverse. The matches with baseline rallies have more tactical elements to them, but by and large, when you have two players whose styles both default back to defensive baseline play by nature, it's still not as exciting as people seem to portray it. Matches between Djokovic and Federer have been far more entertaining with Federer more of an offensive, precision style baseline attack, and both players are more prone to employing change of pace tactics like coming into the net to catch an opponent off guard. Likewise, when you have a power player versus a finesse player, it makes for more compelling tennis, in my opinion.
When watching a Djokovic and Nadal match, there's almost always a constant ebb and flow in the level of play. I have long felt this sentiment about there matches, but typing this while watching the French Open final really is a prime example. You have moments where each can look completely disengaged in some of their matches. You have moments today where Djokovic gifts away five straight games with a slew of unforced errors that aren't even close to the lines. For every brilliant rally, there are three average to underwhelming ones. The matches' unforced errors outnumber winners, and those don't even contemplate forced errors that could easily be considered shots the player would ordinarily make. The periods of significant drop off in play are accentuated due to the fact that there is less variety in other potential matchups. Somehow, it seems a little more bearable if a player hits a blistering forehand wide down the line when going for an outright winner than seeing a shot that was pushed long on a ball that was right in the center of the court.
The other element, as I mentioned, is that the length of time of the match does not translate to the amount of time played. These two players take some of the most time between points of any two men on tour. I believe it was their longest ever Australian Open final that hey played where the average amount of time between points was above the legally permitted amount of time by ten seconds. When you subtract all of the time that should never have occurred in the first place from the total match time, it shaves about an hour off of the total match time. That's an hour of us watching Nadal fix his wedgie or Djokovic bounce a ball before a serve an inordinate number of times. I completely get that after a particularly long rally that the chair umpire has good reason to overlook a time violation, but I've watched points during this match in particular where there is a serve, a return unforced error, and a length of time between points that exceeded 20 seconds. Certainly these men are not cut in the mold of Roger Federer or Andy Roddick, both of whom would ordinarily take well under the allocated amount of time to return to the service line for another serve. A match with the same number of points between those two pairings will have a 60-90 minute difference over the span of five sets solely from the amount of time spent between points, not the points themselves. That's a staggering difference. Assuming the level of tennis is the same between the two matches, wouldn't you want to have all of that tennis packed into a shorter period of time? I certainly would!
Undeniably, these are the two greatest in the sport of tennis right now. As such, we can fully expect more finals between the two in their already most contested of all time rivalry. They absolutely deserve to contest these matches, and I am not taking that away from them. Still, you'll have to excuse me if you see me rooting for some Djokovic vs. Wawrinka or Nadal vs. Tsonga finals instead of this matchup, which has lost its luster in my eyes.
Okay, so I am a little late, as matches started today, but I just didn't get to writing about the French Open yesterday. Historically I have filled out brackets much like how most people do for the NCAA basketball tournament. I haven't done so in a while, but I still formulate outcomes and scenarios in my head. Let's take a look at what's in store:
Rafa's quarter:
Rafa has been tabbed with having a difficult draw, and it's true that it isn't exactly a cakewalk. He's the king of clay, though, and the greatest ever at Roland Garros. That said, he's as vulnerable as he's ever been on this surface coming into the event, having a run of some surprising losses this clay court season. He should destroy Ginepri in the first round, followed by a potential second round matchup with Dominic Thiem, a very nice young player. He doesn't have what it takes at this point to trouble Nadal, though. He has a potentially dangerous fourth round competitor in Nicolas Almagro, a great clay court player who actually defeated Nadal this year on the surface. I don't believe he has what it takes to do that in a best of five setting, but it makes for some interesting intrigue. Waiting for him in the quarters should be David Ferrer, so Nadal has likely the most difficult quarterfinal match of the top four seeds. Grigor Dimitrov is in this part of the draw as well, but he's got a tricky road that he just won't be able to maneuver. Ivo Karlovic is probably the worst first round opponent a person can draw for a non-seed, so he had that misfortune, and Ferrer is simply a bull on clay that he's not quite going to be able to take down, should he make it that far. No upsets here, Nadal comes through.
The Stanimal's Quarter:
Stanislas Wawrinka has followed up his incredible Australian Open run with a very lackluster set of results. Historically a very good clay court player, Stan did not have a good spring on the dirt, and he draws a tough quarter, one I don't think he makes it through. It's always tough to play a Spaniard in the first round, and Garcia-Lopez is no slouch on clay. He could have another Spaniard in Feliciano Lopez followed by a very difficult fourth round match. The match I am looking forward to is a potential third round clash between Gael Monfils and the enigma that is Fabio Fognini, probably the most hated player on tour. The two played an incredible match several years back that went five sets and was mired in a little bit of controversy. In what may have been the match ending the latest ever at the French Open, Fognini clamored for play to be halted in the fifth set. Monfils wanted to continue on, and eventually the match was suspended at 5-5 in the fifth due to lack of light. Fognini ended up claiming the match 9-7 the following day. He followed this up in 2011 with a controversial win in which he was accused of inappropriately getting treatment for cramps. Barely able to move, he pulled out the victory and received a chorus of boos after the match. He withdrew from the quarterfinals due to injury in what may have been a more political than physical move. Needless to say, the huge fan favorite Monfils will be taking on the villain Fognini. I really felt like Monfils could make a huge run here; he always plays his absolute best in front of the home crowd, as he loves the attention of the grand stage and the home crowd. His ankle and his fitness are a question mark, though. He was in good form early in the year, but is a not 100% Monfils able to take on the likes of people like Fognini and Wawrinka? Probably not, but what fun are predictions if you don't call a few upsets? The bottom of the quarter feature a slew of clay courters, the unfulfilled promise of Richard Gasquet, and Andy Murray, who has not been the same since his back surgery. As far as I'm concerned, this eighth of the draw is wide open, with Kohlschreiber having as good a chance as any to escape. Coming off a clay court title last week, he could carry that momentum into the French. This is a strange quarter in that there's a ton of talent but a real lack of results for the group on clay in 2014. This is as wide open as it gets, and I'm just going to go with Monfils as a fun pick to advance. He looked okay in his dance off, after all.
Federer's Quarter:
The draw gods were smiling on Federer this year. You don't get a much easier draw than the one he had. The only person that could even trouble him before the quarterfinals is a firing on all cylinders Ernests Gulbis. On the top half, you have Tomas Berdych as the highest seed, certainly a very capable clay court player. The Robredo is a very intriguing player in this portion of the draw. Age seems to not play a role in his ability. Truly a great competitor, he's capable of beating anyone in the quarter. Roberto Bautista Agut is another guy who could muddy the waters in this quarter, but I don't see it happening. Ultimately, I like Federer to come through this quarter with a victory over Berdych in the quarters, although it wouldn't at all surprise me to see Robredo make a quarterfinal run and even beat Federer, as he did last year at the US Open.
Novak's Quarter:
Fresh off of a victory in Rome over Nadal, Djokovic will be tested in this tournament. Let's see, clay courters in the first two rounds, constant under-achieving yet still dangerous Marin Cilic potentially in the third round, Tsonga on home turf who can beat anybody on any given day potentially in the fourth round, and his quarterfinal match is a bit of a question mark. I don't like Raonic's chances here. I think Gilles Simon knocks him off in the third round. Were Kei Nishikori 100% healthy, I'd certainly pick him, hands down, to be Djokovic's quarterfinal opponent, and while I still think he has a shot, I am not so confident in his health to hold up over the course of some potentially grueling matches against guys who will make him work. I like Simon to make a run to the quarters before he ultimately bows out to Djokovic.
In the semis, Rafa should easily dismiss my fun underdog in Monfils, and a semifinal between Federer and Djokovic should prove a bit more competitive. I see Federer jumping out to an early lead before his level of play falling like he is very prone to, and Novak wins in four sets. In the finals, we have another "epic" match between two players who commit a time violation between every single point. It's not that I don't enjoy their matches, but over the course of five sets, you can only tolerate so much ball bouncing, shorts adjusting, hair touching activity and long baseline rallies with relatively few winners before it grows a little stale. Previously I had calculated if you took all the time the two spend above the time violation mark over the course of their five set French Open final, it added about another hour to the total match time. That's a lot of wasted time. But I digress, these two will battle it out, and I think that this time, someone finally solves Nadal in a French Open final, giving Djokovic a career Slam of his own. Now there's nothing left to do but to sit back, watch some tennis, and see all my predictions go wrong!
This is purely anecdotal, but society, we have a problem. Well, we have many problems, but socially we have a particular problem. There's a fear of being alone. It may make sense, but there's a distinction to make. Being lonely and being alone are not the same. One can be alone without being lonely, and actually one can be lonely without being alone with the type of social and emotional detachment that is possible even between people familiar with each other. In the smartphone age, everyone is connected. Everyone wants to be doing something with someone they know because they can and because it's comfortable. If no one's available, why do it? Or what you can do is go out but then spend the entire night on the phone online. The way I see it, it's a trend, and an alarming one at that. Now that I finally have a smartphone, I can't claim to be completely immune to that all of the time, but I feel I at least do better than many, partly due to mentality and partly due to lack of a smartphone until last year.
What's happening is we are cultivating a society that is not independent. I would venture to say that there are a lot of "independent" folks out there that really don't fit that definition. A key characteristic that I see is that people intertwining being lonely and being alone. "I can't be alone, or else I will be lonely", or something to that degree. That sort of mentality can be very counterproductive. In the past several months I have seen people either ask if others would go to a concert alone, or I have seen people stay in rather than go out due to lack of a person to go out with. Here's the thing: I am a timid person. I have some anxiety issues. When I struggled with them more, I used to get sick to my stomach going down the stairs from the apartment out to the car about going to a show where I didn't know anyone. And you know what? I forced myself to do it anyway, and more often than not, it worked out great. Even when it didn't work out great, it worked out well enough. I can count on one hand the number of times I have gone out alone and felt as though I would have been happier staying in. The more I did it, the easier it became. I don't know that it ever becomes truly easy, but it transforms from a production to a minor trifle. It seems fewer people are willing to do that, even amongst the "social" people.
The mentality is that people want a wingman/wingwoman. They want the safety net, the reassurance that they can go out, mingle, and if things go wrong, they have a person in the back pocket to tend to their wounded egos. And why not? Everyone likes a safety net, or at least most people. It becomes a crutch, though, and it leads us to a situation where people are unwilling to take risks. Being solo results in one of two things, being alone the entire night, or meeting new people. In the case of the former, if you are doing something you enjoy, being alone shouldn't be a problem anyhow. For the latter, even if you are not social, meeting people is partially out of your control because others can initiate contact with you. In many circumstances, that is the case with me. I will go to a show, keep to myself, and inevitably someone will begin talking to me. Once there's that icebreaker, I am fine. As it happens more and more often, then you become able to do the initiating. It's a very beneficial exercise. The biggest example in my life was travelling overseas by myself. It's a little intimidating to think about going to a place with a language you cannot speak and not knowing anyone, but that's what being independent and adventurous is all about. Had I gone with a pal, it's very likely I would not have forged all of the friendships in Europe that I did. Instead of turning to my right to talk to a friend, I turned to my left and talked to a stranger. And it worked out.
But why is this important? Who cares if people are able to go out alone and be content? Well, here's my concern. People are already susceptible to herd mentality. With the advent of technology, it provides an even greater opportunity for that when there is a reluctance to be alone, to do something independently of a familiar crowd. Herd mentality is obviously dangerous. Are people with social herd mentality more prone to herd mentality in sociopolitical and economic issues? I don't know, maybe. But that aside, herd mentality stifles creativity and creates a more homogenous society. I don't want to live in a boring world. I don't think that's going to happen in my lifetime. Even if it did, I think I'd be okay due to the fact that I can be alone and do things I like and be content with it (not always, but often enough).
So here's what I'd encourage. Try and go outside of your comfort zone. When you're at a bar or venue or wherever, and you're alone, don't reach for the phone. Don't just exist in a bar and scroll through your Facebook feed or send a "pay attention to me" text to 30 friends hoping you get a few responses. Talk to someone, or wait for someone to talk to you. Exist within your own thoughts, your own universe. Think about what made you go to that place and why you enjoy it, not that you're there without people you know. Earlier I mentioned that if you are doing something you enjoy, it shouldn't matter if you are alone. On the flip side, if you require other people to do an activity (and not something that literally requires multiple people to do), how much do you really enjoy it? If you find you're not enjoying yourself, that you cannot enjoy yourself, perhaps you don't like what you are doing as much as you think you do. Maybe it is something that is made much more enjoyable by company, and that's fine, but maybe not; take a moment to stop and think about it. It's a good opportunity to be introspective. There is no such thing as failure provided you learn something from an experience, so I encourage everyone to take the opportunity to learn.
One of the often discussed/argued sports topics of discussion revolve around which player is the greatest to ever play a particular sport. First off, I want to remove one group of participants from the discussion. There are those who state there is no point in discussing the greatest player of all time. You can't ever compare players across eras, and we'll never have a definitive answer on who is best. That's 100% correct, but who cares? Part of the beauty of sports is not the sporting events themselves, but the discussion surrounding them. We'll never know how Babe Ruth would hit against Randy Johnson. We'll never know how Wilt Chamberlain would fare in today's hyper athletic NBA. Part of the fun is speculating, taking relevant facts and tidbits into consideration, and making an assertion that others can support or refute. No, we'll never know the actual truth, but it's fun to discuss it, so that's just what I am going to do.
With Roger Federer's reign of supreme dominance in the mid 2000s, the talk of tennis greatest of all time appeared it was going to be an easier and easier argument to make. Roger was less man and more machine in those days, easily dismissing the players he faced in nearly every match, making many look foolish in the process. "The Maestro", as he was called for his beautiful precision game and graceful movement on court, is largely responsible for the elevation of the sport; his reign of supremacy forced oncoming players to elevate their levels of play, and yet Federer always seemed to have a switch he could flip to take his game to a level no one else possessed. Or no one until a man named Rafael Nadal came around, at least. Rafa was the first of a number of supremely talented and driven young guns ready to burst onto the scene, followed shortly thereafter by Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. These three men have significantly muddied the waters in the greatest of all time discussion, not necessarily staking a claim for themselves yet, quite so early in their careers, but due to their results against Federer. Nadal is the obvious one, as he has by and large owned Federer due to a game that is Roger's kryptonite, a stubbornness by Federer to change his style of play early on in the rivalry when Nadal's game was far less developed and well rounded than it is today, and a preponderance of matches on clay, where it is very difficult to argue against Rafa for being the greatest of all time on that surface.
So let's take a step back from these four men and talk about the argument of the GOAT as a whole. What makes someone the greatest? Is it purely in the numbers? If so, which numbers? Total titles? Major titles? Wins overall? Is it measured by dominance over the field? Weeks at number one in the world? Does one have to excel on all surfaces? Is it better to have a short term level of supreme success or a long term level of great success? These are all questions that people have varying opinions on, which inevitably lead to differences in opinion on who is the greatest of all time. What also muddies the water is crossing of eras, as is the case in all sports. Tennis went from a game that was played with wooden racquets entirely on grass courts to one with graphite racquets, all sorts of new string technology, and a myriad of court surfaces including multiple types of clay, multiple types of hard, grass, and previously even carpet, and surfaces are found both indoors and outdoors. The game is also more globalized than ever, with players coming out of more and more countries than ever before. The game evolved from on where the goal was to try and move forward towards the net more often than not to one where players rarely stray from the baseline due to the evolution of racquet technology. Tennis is perhaps one of the harder sports to compare across eras because of the technology changes, surface changes, and the fact that it is an individual sport with one on one matches and ever fluctuating levels of competition.
So who are the names that regularly find their way into the discussion? Well, there are more than I am going to list, but the main culprits that seem to come up repeatedly are Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal is creeping in on the discussion as well.
Laver has won two calendar year Grand Slams, an unmatched feat. He is considered by many, not all, to be the best player of his time. What makes evaluating this hard is he played both before and after the Open Era and at a time when tennis was mixed between amateur and professional ranks, complicating matters on participation in tournaments. Tournaments had fewer matches and not nearly the same level of competition back then, and in my personal opinion, I don't see how he makes the cut due to these facts.
Bjorn Borg was as relentless as of a competitor as they came. His superior athleticism and grit won him a total of 11 Grand Slam events, all at the French Open and Wimbledon. Borg retired young at the age of 26 due to burnout (more mental than physical, although he lived a fast lifestyle), and he often didn't make the trip down to Australia for the Australian Open (as was common in his time). Borg is statistically the most dominant Grand Slam player in terms of winning percentage, and had he played a longer career and more events, he certainly would have had several more titles to his name. He was a baseline player in a time when there were not really baseline players, and this alone makes him a very compelling argument that he was a revolutionary talent and very well could be the greatest to ever play. How much does he get knocked for not having a lengthy career to continue to amass titles, though?
Pete Sampras, before Roger Federer came along, was the leader in Grand Slam titles, and probably the single most dominant force Wimbledon has ever seen. His weeks spent ranked number one and his overall number of Grand Slam titles cemented him as the greatest in the eyes of many. Sampras really had no rivals that were largely successful against him, either. He's got probably the greatest second serve of all time, and he probably could have continued his success had he abandoned his 85 sq. inch racquet when the rest of the tour went to 90-100 sq. inch racquets (many players never elect to make a big transition in racquets like this due to the difficulty). The argument against him is that he was not a great player on clay, and he never had good success at the French Open. To be lacking in one area of the game when there are other well rounded players at similar levels of greatness diminish his standing a bit. Additionally, with Federer stealing away a number of his records, including Grand Slam titles, and Nadal poised to tie and then overtake the Grand Slam mark himself, his biggest arguing point is gone.
Moving forward to the current era, Roger Federer is now considered by many to be the greatest ever. The reasons listed at the opening of the analysis only partially tell the story. When looking at the list of records and marks Federer holds, it's dumbfounding. If not the greatest of all time, he is certainly the most consistently great of all time. His marks of consecutive finals, semifinals, and quarterfinals in Grand Slam events demonstrate a remarkable run of simply not ever having a bad day. All great players have that bad day where they lose to someone they'd beat 19 times out of 20, but for years in the events that mattered most, Federer didn't. The semifinals mark in particular is one I simply cannot imagine falling. The knock on Federer is twofold: he dominated during a "weak" era of competition, and how can you be the greatest ever when your main rival owned you? First of all, the notion that he dominated a weak era is a bit unfair. The game is more global than ever before and is deeper than ever before, making it more likely to get knocked out in the earlier rounds, something Federer rarely ever did. I also don't think that gives players like Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin, among others, their due. When you look at some of the players Federer toppled en route to a Grand Slam title and compare to some of the people Sampras knocked off, there are many cases where Sampras probably had an easier path. Certainly, the accomplishments of Nadal and Djokovic winning their titles over the past few years are more impressive a task, as there is a glut of top end talent in the years around the turn of the decade.
As for Nadal's dominance of Federer, that one becomes harder and harder for me to dismiss. I initially stood by there not being any shame in the lopsided record against the greatest of all time on clay, and it's not Roger's fault Rafa couldn't advance to hard court finals earlier in his career when Fed would always be waiting for him. That only carries so much merit, though. What really stands out in my mind is that Federer was always perceived as a supreme mental player, and Nadal single handedly ruined that. Not only did Federer lose his edge, but it became a weakness. When you look at the leads he has blown, the break point opportunities missed, the inexplicable errors, and a stubborn determination to not change his game in order to try and prove no one could beat him from the baseline, it really is staggering to think how many more titles he could have. Had he pulled out that epic five setter in Rome, maybe the entire fabric of tennis is different. Maybe his confidence has that extra little boost he needed to not crumble under pressure. But that didn't happen, and when you compare Federer's record against Nadal, a lopsided record, Murray, a slight edge to Murray and one that figures to grow as Federer ages, and Djokovic, a slight edge to Federer with Djokovic in his prime and Federer in the twilight of his career, the head to head numbers really don't suggest Federer being as dominant as his overall numbers. Now, I want to say, this is extremely harsh nitpicking. Anyone who denies Federer's greatness is either bitter or delusional. Still, these results leave just enough doubt to make someone hesitant crowning him the all time greatest.
Finally, and the jury is still largely out on him, is Rafael Nadal. Nadal is no slouch with 13 Grand Slam titles, can claim to be the greatest of all time on clay, and also has multiple Slams on both grass and hard courts. Easily one of the fiercest competitors of all time, the question with him has never been the results, but the health. Having already missed significant time due to injury, the question is how many more titles does he realistically have in him with Djokovic being a top rival now, Murray coming into his own (or at least he was before his back surgery), and some of the next wave of young talent starting to figure things out and making their way towards and into the top 10. Suppose he cannot stay healthy, though, look at where he ends up even today! All the Grand Slams, the myriad of Masters Series titles, well more than Federer. His greatness started at a much younger age, and despite playing second fiddle to Federer for years, his stranglehold over their head to head careers gives him a little bit of a boost in his all time standing. Do his career accolades, when you dig deeper into the list, stack up against Federer's? Maybe not in all categories, but when you look at his winning percentages, his titles, and his all surface game that he never quite gets enough credit for, he's at least within shouting distance. As of right now, I don't think he quite gets the nod to be the greatest of all time. I do think, however, that he still has at least a couple of more Slams in him and some more fight in him yet; the man has never stopped finding ways to improve his game. He used to be a purely relentless defensive baseline player. No serve, no net game, just ridiculous range and a loopy topspin forehand. Now his serve is respectable, he is solid at net, can play a more offensive style game, and he's still as fit and relentless as ever. I think he is the type of player that can reinvent himself to suit his declining physical abilities to add some additional longevity to his career.
So, did I leave the picture hazy enough for everyone? I didn't even mention a lot of others who could be thrown in the mix, either. Now, I did say that part of the fun is going out and making a case for one person. I don't want to back off of that. My feeling is I really have to give it to Federer at this point, with the sense that Nadal will overtake him in the coming years, and that Borg probably would hold the spot had he continued his career. Feel free to make a case for someone else; I am all ears!
