Letters to the Editor
swilldog
Published Letters: 184 Editor's Choice: 20
-
on "decline"
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First off, note that I was citing the ever-nebulous "conventional wisdom." That S.O.B. is wrong most of the time anyway, so much so that I wonder why I listen to him sometimes.
Revenue and attendance gains are certainly indicative of financial health. Fan interest (which admittedly is much less easily defined and reliably tracked) has generally diminished, or so I've read on numerous occasions over the last few years.
Perhaps these articles I've read were incorrect, and perhaps my recollections of these aren't quite in line with the current state of things. But it's not to hard to do a Google search and find articles about the perceived decline in baseball. I'm sure many of the points made in these articles are easily refuted. But people are talking about it, and have been for some time. And where there's smoke...
From what I've seen, MLB has evolved into a borderline niche sport. Baseball junkies certainly aren't going anywhere. Rotisserie leaguers love it. Casual fans looking to spend an enjoyable day spending too much money on beer and hot dogs have fun at the park. But as far as the rest of us, it seems that general interest in the game appears to be on the decline (or at least flat while interest in other sports is on the increase).
Is MLB in jeopardy? As you pointed out, hardly. This ain't hockey we're talking about. ;-)
-
kthxbye
[Read the article: Three questions for Tom Morello]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"But you're still a millionaire, Tom. Viva La Revolucion." -- RealName
Jealous much?
Since when must immensely talented and politically interested artists take a vow of poverty in order for their voice to be valid? Oh, that's right: when they disagree with people like you.
-
concealed permits /= failsafe
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Imagine if a person in one of those classrooms had a concealed weapon and the requisite training -- maybe they take out the perpetrator, maybe not. Maybe they take a few shots in a panic and hit a fellow student or a security officer responding to the situation. Sure, logic dictates that another armed party would increase the odds of ending such a situation sooner with less bloodshed. But logic also dictates that it could potentially make an already awful situation worse.
But anyway...
Thanks for today's column, King. Well considered and thought-provoking as always.
-
nothing if not predictable
[Read the article: Rolling Stone hits the big 4-0]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rolling Stone mag nowadays is about as germane as..... zzzzzzz...
Sorry, nodded off there. That's how strongly they hold my interest anymore.
But still, a fun passtime, so I'll bite. Here's 10 I pulled off the top of my head:
-- "Rock Around the Clock," by Bill Haley and the Comets: Honestly people, is this that hard?
-- "Radio Free Europe," by R.E.M.: semi-officially introduced the college radio scene to the rest of us
-- "Rock Lobster," by the B-52's: from the album that inspired John Lennon to get back into the studio to record Double Fantasy
-- "Head Like a Hole," by Nine Inch Nails: adds Angst as a silent partner to Sex, Drugs, & Rock 'n Roll
-- "Stayin' Alive," by the Bee Gees: on the downside, they brought us John Travolta
-- "Born to be Wild," by Steppenwolf: Heavy Metal is born
-- "Enter Sandman," by Metallica: Metal goes mainstream
-- "Another Brick in the Wall," by Pink Floyd: from the mother of all concept albums
-- "Sexual Harrassment in the Workplace," by Frank Zappa: the birth (re-birth) of the nerd guitar god
-- "Caring is Creepy," by The Shins: this song will change your life! ;-)
-
"But where's Mozart?!"
[Read the article: Rolling Stone hits the big 4-0]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm guessing this list is supposed to be in the history of rock (and all its offshoots). Thus, the absence of pre-Elvis-era songs. So let's not all get our panties in a wad that [insert blues legend and/or great composer here] isn't included.
-
Stereo Bit Rate?
[Read the article: The death of hi-fi?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay, so we all should agree that 128 kbps is a crapola bit rate. I rip my CDs at 192 kbps, and generally only notice any degredation in quality at the higher end (usually in cymbal-heavy music, which I generally dislike anyway -- perhaps that's why...). I've found that to be sufficient for playback in nice headphones and occasional home stereo playback.
Could someone who isn't universally convinced that all digital media is junk chime in with an informed (i.e., not solely a personal opinion) overview of what we can expect from higher bit rates, and perhaps what we should strive for? Isn't there a certain threshhold to where the human ear just stops noticing the little nuances?
Great discussion, btw. Been a wonderful diversion from work. :-)