interpol + mlb.
when we try to synergize music with art, we often enter into situations where we have "performance art." this isn't necessarily a bad thing: sometimes we may find ourselves in the unique position of being united with warhol and his contemporaries in a dark room. the lights flicker: the room is damp, and there may be an unspeakable situation occurring that simultaneously says something about humanity. understanding is transmitted in what can only be described as the most carnal of forms, and we are all made the better, where better is of course designed to suit our purposes.
so it is with the synergization of music and sport. recently, i attended an interpol concert with five friends of mine. as i listened to paul banks wax poetically about how he would like to have a "menage-a-trois" to relieve him of his boredom, i couldn't help but have my mind wander. i thought about a great many things, although i suppose that there is a limit to the depths that interpol allows us to experience. whatever. let's stop pretending to delve that deep, anyway.
(here is a note on "delving that deep": back when i still cared about my opinions, i got into some sort of discussion with individuals on a baseball card message board about whether or not glavine would make the hall of fame. i was still using bad statistical arguments at the time, and i just used some phrase "average era" to describe the composite era average that glavine had. anyway, some pedant had to correct me (for i had sinned), because that's how they roll. this, and other events like it, has caused me to completely stop wanting to engage in any sort of intellectual conversations.)
so maybe i should stop trying to be the expert.
major league baseball has suffered the same fate that interpol's third album has suffered: although technically brilliant, it has lost some of the mechanism that made it essential, that made it meaningful.
let's look at this current season. we should be celebrating the return of parity: the triumph of the small market is prime, and when it is combined with a fallen hero chasing the ultimate prize, we should be left with a warm feeling in our hearts. but we're not. why is that the case?
baseball should be lauding barry bonds. like it or not, he's the best we've got. are we going to laud a-rod? that ship has sailed, and it isn't coming back. couple this with the fact that we're never going to give the latins their credit, (memo to society: vlad guerrero and alfonso soriano are players we won’t see again for a long while) and we've basically eroded the concept of baseball to the younger generation. griffey can’t be our hero and theirs, simultaneously. it just isn’t going to work.
it is not as if the players have failed. they are playing at the apex. many young teams are playing as well as they ever have, including
by its very nature, baseball is self-effacing. in no other sport do records matter as much as they do in baseball, and so we often lose track of the essence of the sport in the milestones, which is, perhaps, why people have never been able to name as few players as they can name now. the whole concept of baseball is failing; the ideas of “chasing the pennant” and going to several games a year is gone simply due to affordability concerns; namely, the fact that it costs quite a bit for the kids, who are supposed to be the future of the game, to even attend one game.
so we're left with a problem: we have a sport that is very close to becoming a parody of itself, which we happen to love. to say that the sport needs to go back to its roots is an understatement, because we're in danger of losing the roots themselves, and that's the tragedy.
i tie this idea of baseball losing their roots with the idea of "interpol" because i feel that interpol has suffered the same fate on their third album. we are stuck with the following idea: being technically brilliant doesn't always matter. sometimes, you just need something from deep within. both baseball and interpol are stuck with one singular problem: they are trying to make their performance become art, when the true concept of performance art dictates that the performance is art in and of itself. that is where the understanding comes from, and that is what we should strive for.
now, let me be more specific. interpol's album starts out nicely, with pioneer to the falls setting the tone for what would be considered brilliance under any plausible scenario. great tracks like "pace is the trick," "who do you think," and "mammoth" are interspersed throughout the album, and we might be tempted to think that somehow, someway, interpol is true in a "pure way." but interpol's technique doesn't save "no i in threesome," which, like pitchfork says, has rather childish lyrics that scream of parody. the lighthouse is unintelligible and is clearly filler or a wasted attempt at a deeper meaning, which is always a dangerous thing to try. interpol has realized that they are at the apex, to be sure, but they forgot what got them there. and it is the same for baseball.
in the same vein, baseball's season has started out well, with the red sox doing well, fueled by dice-k. ichiro and a-rod, arguably baseball's two most marketable starts, are doing fantastically well, and, as mentioned earlier, we have a number of different markets doing well, which should fuel a resurgence. additionally, the mets, dodgers, and red sox (as well as, to some extent, the cubs) are doing well, which is huge for the big markets. but, like interpol, mlb has poisoned themselves by focusing only on the steroids, the asterisk- something that nobody should even give a crap about-, the demise of the yankees and the drama of roger clemens, such to the point that they have become focused on leading the yankees, a .500 ballclub, on sportscenter.
i'll listen to "our love to admire" a number of times, just as i'll go to a baseball game tomorrow. but let’s not pretend that i’m representative of society. my taste is conceived from the roots, but we need to re-examine what those roots are. for interpol, the roots are well-conceived lyrics, first and foremost, combined with the proper speed and musical underpinnings. what does this mean from a practical standpoint? well, it means that songs like 'lighthouse' are avoided at all costs; that they're unafraid to be raw, as they were on the first and second album (but not on the third, save perhaps pioneer to the falls and the heinrich manuever), and that they become focused on the performance, as opposed to performance art. after all, we're not all andy warhol; and even he threw a few changeups when fastballs were needed.
what does this mean for baseball? well, for one thing, it means that they focus on important things- playing up west coast baseball to the east coast would be a nice start. the dodgers/padres race is the best thing the regular season has going for it at this point (except for maybe indians/tigers).
they could also play up the brewers, indians, and braves, three teams that are pretty young and pretty exciting to watch. ryan braun is unbelievable, grady sizemore is pretty close, and we'll be talking about the talented young braves in a year (francoeur, mccann, jarrod s., and the gang are something to consider). and for crying out loud, play up the mets, not the yankees. baseball has to learn that they can survive without the flagship team winning every year; this is something that football learned a long time ago, and that basketball is learning right now. it's a scary time for selig, but he has to get through it.
and for crying out loud, lower the ticket prices.
6 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
When you say "baseball," are you referring to the powers that be in the league, or the collective sports consciousness that follows it? ESPN and the sportswriters it controls with an iron fist make issues of things... sports fans make issues of things... perhaps even the players (ahem, Curt Schilling) make issues of things... the sport itself is benign. It is not the lens - we are the lens - it is the focus. And as such will forever and always remain only what we choose to see. Therefore, having never heard Interpol's new album, I declare your entire analogy fallacious, and ban analogies altogether.
I'd kind of like to go back to the 1970's or earlier, and see if it really was "more pure" back then. Did small markets really compete better? It's still argued today that small market teams aren't as disadvantaged as we think they are - which is also fallacious - of course they are disadvantaged. That doesn't however mean that their performance need reflect it. And does anyone remember when the Indians were an AL payroll juggernaut who sold out the Jake for 2 seasons straight? That was a mere 10 years ago.
Much like your post, I don't really know where I'm going with this. I guess it's this - what's with all the cynicism? The NBA is disrespected? MLB is dying? If you've witnessed Ryan Howard, Vlad, or Bobby Abreu win home run derbies and smiled, if you flipped out when Ken Griffey Jr. hits a game winning 3 run homer in the bottom of the 10th, if seeing Ryan Freel barehand a groudball in the outfield to throw someone out at the plate makes you involuntarily swear oaths, if Manny Ramirez launching a ball 487 feet makes giddy, what's wrong with baseball?
As Speak the Hungarian rapper constantly reminds us, it's all a business. You're right about ticket prices driving the true fans out, leading to a, shall we say lackluster sporting atmosphere. Watching a game where the players actually feed of the fans is the apex of all sport/spectator relationships, and it's being relegated strictly to a collegiate phenomenon. But don't let a third party tell you how to enjoy a baseball game. You enjoy it however damn well you please. Aaron Harang, strike another batter out, please.
What are sports roots? Should we laud Barry Bonds? Would it feel right if Philly didn't boo him unmercifully and throw syringes at him? Are we going to care 25 years from now that Bonds was a jerk with a mistress? Are we going to remember that Hank Aaron was a jerk on a smaller scale, but that he has a right to be because he's old and can think and do whatever he wants to at this point? Maybe he was a jerk back in the 70's, but I was born in '83 - all I knew was that he was the home run king and that made him great.
What are baseball's roots? I don't care. I like to get lost inside of it - the same way I do with a good music album. (Oops... okay ban on analogies lifted.) If something's not doing it for me, I there are a lot albums out there to give a shot. Anyone listened to Ga ga ga ga ga yet? Anyone noticed that Ryan Howard is an unstoppable force? Perhaps I haven't, but I can't wait to.
On a different not, perennial "live arm" Oliver Perez has apparently figured a few things out this season... that's awesome!
yeah, the problem isn't sports consciousness, it's the league itself. and, to borrow your analogy, are we really the lens?
the nba is certainly disrespected. i think it's pretty clearcut. with respect to the other two major leagues, the nba is much more pure from an athletics standpoint- there are very few drug-related issues. with the exception of this ref who sinned, it's alright.
i am also not saying that we (you and i, and true fans) need to be told how to enjoy a game. but i am saying that we are losing a generation of people who simply can't enjoy a game due to cost and circumstance. going to a game is a big ordeal now, and this was not always the case. we have to plan and budget to go to these things, and we have incomes.
it's alright for you not to care about baseball's roots, because baseball is already inside of your soul, but it isn't for everyone, and at this rate, it's not going to be, which will make it harder for it to survive as a sport. that's my point. and i think part of it is baseball's fault. they have disassociated with bonds, instead of embracing him as they did mcgwire, and they have played up the yankees far too much. that's my 2 cents.
Nobody liked Bonds when he hit 73... and that was before all the steroid stuff hit. He's a jackass, and baseball did not disassociate with him any more than he basically told everyone to buzz off. If the steroid stuff never happened, perhaps the attitude towards Bonds would be ambivalence rather than vitriol, but no one was embracing Bonds. Bonds' attitude has always been, "Love me because I'm the greatest there is - but I don't like you back," while McGwire and Sosa played along as the likable, huggable sluggers in their prime. That's why there embraced - they played the part. Don't you think baseball wanted to embrace Bonds? If you're going to throw baseball under the bus for not embracing Bonds, then Bonds is driving the bus for not embracing baseball.
In fact, let it be known that the only two players who were ever universally embraced when they set home run records were Babe Ruth and Mark McGwire. Roger Maris got his share of flak - and he was even white and a Yankee for dethroning Ruth. (Mickey Mantle was supposed to break the record.) And Hank Aaron sure went through a bit on his way to breaking Ruth's record. Granted, public opinion was not universally against them (Bonds is probably the only record holder for that to happen) but to think it was a universal celebration when they broke records is ignoring a lot of history.
Ironically, I think baseball will take a similar attitude towards Bonds that have been taken towards other baseball villains - Ty Cobb and/or Pete Rose. Cobb was a terrible person - no doubt he cheated whenever he could, probably worse than Bonds. But when somebody says, "Cobb is the worst person every to be a great baseball player," the sentence never focuses on the worst person part, but the great baseball player. I think there is a similar attitude towards Pete Rose, but being from Cincinnati, I'm biased because the media there still thinks Pete Rose is the greatest Red who ever played - which is why it might be interesting to see how the SF media treats Bonds, but things are so national these days. Pete Rose never had to deal with anyone who didn't love him until he got banned.
Anyway, baseball is in much better shape than the NBA. And regardless of what your feelings are as individual, the problem comes down to marketing the athlete. Baseball, which has to make an event of a hallowed record being broken, can't because Barry Bonds won't allow himself to be a marketable commodity. This is something that the NBA has been dealing with for forever - finding someone to market (to white folks.) They have an excellent start with LeBron and Dwayne Wade right now. They have a veritable bonanza sitting there for them with Oden and Durant, if they can figure out a way to make the Pacific Northwest matter. Let's hope KG gets some love in Boston, 'cuz it's about a decade overdue at this point.
Last point - when Bill Simmons talked to Paul Shirley, Shirley deftly pointed out that the NBA made a big mistake in trying to promote superstars and not teams during the ascendency of Michael Jordan. Great players do amazing things, but sport is about competition and rivalry - team stuff in the NBA. Most of the players that came into the league since had a cockiness level (partially due to way the NBA marketed them) that their play just couldn't live up to. As great as LeBron is, will he ever live up to the hype? I would content he has only done so once, against Detroit last season. It's easy for football to market teams because it's hard to market individuals in a league that has 50 players on a team and over 1600 players in the league. When is baseball most at successful as a league? When it can market a Red Sox/Yankees series, regardless of what you may think of those two team. When the Cubs go on a playoff run, with about 2 of the same players as 4 years ago. When there's a late season series between two teams in playoff contention. Don't know if you noticed, but baseball's numbers are up this year.
I've gone on for a long time, and ended far from where I started, but I just want to say that the NBA is 3rd - regardless of it's "purity" as a sport - because no one has figured out how to make the regular season interesting... it's only exciting for teams that might lose first round in the post season. It's third because teams great rivalries have died - mostly because Boston, NY, and Philly - teams with the most history, have gone down the crapper. Finally it's third because too many players just don't come off as likable - which brings us back to Barry Bonds. Look, people want a certain amount of reciprocity - they want their cheers and devotion to mean something to their team (or favorite player). When players take the attitude that, "I'm in it for me - but you should like me because I'm best there is," fans stop caring. They want to cheer for the underdog anyway. Look at Michael Jordan - he's hyper-competitive and probably not the nicest guy - but he always came off that way in public.
He's also a pretty funny guy, which can get you surprisingly far.
I'll laud a-rod: he's the best all-around player ever. Bonds might be somewhere in the top 15, but he's so dirty, who really knows?
Post a Comment
<< Home