What is SPEDREX?

Upcoming Events

Featured Blogs

 

24-Year Old Hospital Technician Gets Freaky With Dead Body of 92-Year Old Woman

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

7:34 AM  0 Comments    

New Study put out by The No-Shit? Research Institute Shows Men Play Casual Games

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

9:52 AM  0 Comments    

Schwarzenegger claims Marijuana is a Leaf, not a Drug

6:13 AM  0 Comments    

And the winner is...aw, who am I kidding, the Pats won. Again.

Monday, October 29, 2007

And the funniest part of the week leading to yesterday's destruction of the hopes and (at least for the males) testicles of Redskins' fans everywhere?

















4:35 PM  0 Comments    

Robotic Jason Taylor Terrorizes London

Thursday, October 25, 2007

8:28 PM  0 Comments    

Six Months after Shooting, VA Tech Students Get on With Life

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

7:56 AM  0 Comments    

Popular Super-Hero Admits to Doping, Millions of Fans Shamed World Wide

Friday, October 19, 2007

Oct. 19, Central City

8:07 AM  0 Comments    

Animals Protest Use of Image On Sports Teams

6:53 AM  0 Comments    

New Studies Show Crime Does, in fact, Pay

Thursday, October 18, 2007

10:38 AM  0 Comments    

California Given New Opportunity to Showcase High Percentage of Jerks

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

The State of California has sure had it rough for some time now.












9:08 AM  0 Comments    

House Democrats Show How Effective They Can Be

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Lawmakers in congress voted in a House committee resolution on October 10th to designate the Armenian Mass Murders during World War 1 as genocide. The House Foreign Relations Committee voted 27-21 despite pleas by President Bush to reconsider. The vote, which was non-binding, could have consequences on the war in Iraq, as the Turkish government has warned that if the resolution passed, they could withdraw their support of the war, which includes allowing supplies to pass through Turkey on route to Iraq.

So, what have we learned?

We've learned that Congress clearly needs something to do and something to "congregate" over. They also need something to make them look good compared to the President. You see, this congress, which is still considered "newly" elected, really, really, really fucked up. This congress fucked up on a scale comparable to when somebody accidentally impales their new spouse with a harpoon on their honeymoon. This congress was elected on the basis of one promise and purpose: to end the war in Iraq. Then, all the congressmen got to D.C., and shucks, they found out that the job required actual work, and they got stymied. It isn't their fault, people. They're crazy. All people who run for political office are. They don't want to work. They want to put "Congressman" in front of their name.

So now, Congress, which learned the hard way how hard ending the war is, has an 11% approval rating. To give you some perspective on that, consider this: Cobra Commander had an 11% approval rating. So Congress, you're about as popular as Cobra Commander.

With said crappy approval rating, Congress needed something that would divert attention, make them look magnanimous, and stand them in opposition to Bush. Thinking along those lines, they quickly got to work. SpedRex.com has obtained a smuggled transcript of the proceedings, which may have gone something like this:

Congressman A: To my distinguished colleagues, I would first like to say how it is an honor to be here, and I would like to thank the chairman of this committee, the distinguished gentleman from South Dakota...

Congressman B: The chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas. Would the distinguished gentleman from Nevada please distinguish himself from the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska? Sometimes I get you two confused.

Congressman C: The distinguished gentleman from Nevada would like to point out that he has brown hair, while the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska is distinguishable from the distinguished gentleman from Nevada by having no hair.

Congressman D: The distinguished gentleman from Nebraska takes offense to the words of the distinguished gentleman from Nevada.

Congressmen E, F, and G: We quit.

Despite the hilarious misuse of the third person there, we can glean a clear sense of what congress does all day: glorify themselves. You mean to tell me that when we have border issues, a raging, needless war, rising debt (that's being bought by them wily Chinese) and Vince Vaughn, all Congress has for us is "We finally made a decision to call the Armenian genocide a genocide."

Now, some people may look at this and say, "Well, they are defying the President, and if they piss Turkey off maybe they'll withdraw their support, which may influence our involvement." Don't bet on it. Countries drop out of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" every day. Hell, we've had to start making up countries just to keep minimum membership so we can have a clubhouse in Bermuda. If Turkey says we can't go through Turkey to bring our troops faulty equipment, we'll find another way to not support them. We always do.

The Turks also suffer from the unfortunate but belly-laugh inducing fortune of hailing from a country called Turkey.

So, we have a lame duck president, an incompetent and impotent Congress that is only about 75 years late on figuring out the Armenian thing (but hey, better late than never, right?), and Vince Vaughn. Add it all up and what do we get? Yup, you guessed it: eight more solid years of typical American politics.

Amen.
8:20 AM  0 Comments    

Interview with Everyone But Pete

Monday, October 15, 2007

Oct. 11th, Providence Rhode Island

After watching them play at Brown University as part of the Digital Freedom University campaign (check out www.digitalfreedom.org for more info), I got to sit down with the band to get their take on digital freedom, music, and their experiences as a band. Here is my interview with Jim, Brian, Andrew, and Chris, the four members of Everyone But Pete.

Me: First off, thanks for taking the time to talk to me. To start, I have to ask the question that is burning in everybody's mind: what happened to Pete?

Jim: (laughs.) Actually, Pete is our friend who is helping us out tonight. He used to work at various different guitar shops (Guitar Center, Chuck Levin's, etc.) and he was explaining to a co-worker about our band, and the co-worker said, "So, the band is basically everyone but Pete, huh?" Pete told us the story, and the name just stuck.

Me: Well, guys, you came here as part of the Digital Freedom campaign. Digital Freedom is all about how consumers use their digital media; in particular, for college students and indy rock acts like you, this concerns the usage of P2P networks and file-sharing. How do you guys use P2P networks?

Jim: Well, we need a way to get our music to listeners. I cannot stress how important our myspace page has been. Over and over, people on myspace tell us that they got our music from a friend, who downloaded our song, for free, off the internet. While we want to make money off our music, we want people to hear it. The internet allows bands like us to reach people we never could without it. If they buy an album, come to a show, then that's great, but for us, we need listeners, and the internet is one of, if not the, best ways to get our music to a large audience.

Me: The "evil boogeyman" of file-sharing is Metallica. Everyone has seen the image of Lars Ulrich standing in front of his mansion claiming that file-sharing is ruining his life. What happens when you guys become Metallica? When you guys get big enough that file-sharing actually hurts you more than it helps you, does that change your mentality?

Andrew: I think that, for starters, no one can "be" Metallica. Metallica is one of the seminal rock acts of all time, and they deserve their due. They made metal mainstream; before them, no one saw metal as a legitimate genre. Now, things are different. I think that there are so many bands, and so much demand for bands, that people are going to seek out them as easily as they can. A big problem for me is being confined to a genre; with the internet, we can reach a wider audience than we could without it, which allows us to cross genres successfully.

Jim: Yeah, you know, Metallica got big before the internet was even around. They ran a more grassroots campaign to get their music out, which we also do: going to bars, venues, whatever, giving out cds, building interest by being with people, and all that. But like Andrew said, you can confine yourself when you do that. Metallica was not going to non-metal venues to give out their cds; they stayed within their comfort zone, so to speak. With the internet, our comfort zone is far wider than theirs. Will our thinking change? I'd like to think no. It's very hard for me to imagine going from giving my music away over the internet in the hopes of eventually getting to a certain level (the Metallica level) where I get paid for my music, to turning around and demanding all sorts of money for my music, to the point of actually going after my own listeners. It seems very hypocritical.

Brian: I agree. I think it's totally hypocritical. As an artist, I value my intellectual property. But I give that property away, and that is my choice. It's not an XBOX 360. I want people to come and hear my music, not take it home and "own" it. Personally, I think that file sharing is a great thing. I think it should be free, and I hope more people "steal" as much music as possible. It forces bands to go out and tour, which is far more important or fun than making a cd. I don't think that a studio band could survive in this day and age; if all you do is sit in a room and record music without actually presenting it to the people, you're not really in a band. I hope people download my music for free, I hope they share it with their friends, and I hope they come to our shows. That's how I want to make my living, by playing to crowds, not to sound studios.

Jim: Really, we don't want to be Metallica. As strange as this may sound, I personally am not in this to make "millions." Don't get me wrong, millions would be nice, but my goal is to be able to make a living doing this. I want my job to be playing in a band, and I want to play as well as I can, in front of as many people as I can. If I can't make millions and millions of dollars, that's fine, because I'm doing something I love to do.

Me: You guys talked about being "confined to a genre," and how the internet helps bands break that mold and branch out, either to different audiences, or into different sounds, or both. The set you played tonight ran the gamut from very soft music to fairly hard rock 'n' roll. Do you think that having a set sound is a disadvantage? Or do you think that being too eclectic with your sound can hurt you?

Jim: I go both ways on this one. I think the fun in writing music comes from being able to write without being nailed down to one genre or sound; at the same time, I can understand how people can get frustrated with bands that go all over the place with their sound.

Chris: Yeah, the thing about music before the internet is that people used to categorize the bands and their fans like "jocks, nerds, etc," in terms of who listened to what. If you were into punk rock, that was what you listened to and that was how you had to dress to be a part of that community. Now, people have ipods, and if you ask a random person what type of music they listen to, they're bound to say "everything." You can find music ranging from Slayer to Savage Garden on any given mp3 player these days. I think that the internet and file sharing allows bands like us to find new sounds that twenty years ago, we never would have bothered with.

Andrew: I agree with that. There's far too much emphasis on image in music. You'll always have your "McMillions," like Avril Lavigne et al, but then you'll also have those hardworking bands like the Mars Volta that just do it and do it and stay with it until something breaks for them. Those guys built an entire fan base around At the Drive-in, their first band, and then went from there into Mars Volta, which is a totally different sound. For me, and for us, it seems to be that you have to create an image, than match a sound to that image. We sound the way we look, and we don't have a set "look," per se, so our sound is not set in stone, either. So with hard work, we can do what we want to do without having to worry about being confined to a sound or an image. At the outset, though, I do see some advantages in being easily identifiable. When people can categorize you, they can relate to you a little easier.

Me: Jim, you were a part of the debate tonight, and you all watched it. What were your thoughts on the discussion?

Jim: I was blown away. Being part of the debate, I had to go online and do a ton of research about Digital Freedom and what they are fighting for. I still don't completely understand the issues, and I think that a lot of people in this country who should know about digital media issues are in the dark about what is happening right now.

Chris: I liked that the debate was "fair and balanced." I mean, Digital Freedom.org could have just gotten a few people who supported their views and held a "pep-rally" for an hour. Instead, they got a guy from NBC to come and give the other side of the story, which I thought was very smart and also taught me things I did not know about the media industry's stance on file-sharing and use of digital media.

Brian: I learned a ton. I thought that this issue was confined to the record industry, and that it affected mostly artists. I had no idea that movie studios and content distributors were so concerned about what is happening with technology these days. Personally, I'm all for file-sharing, and I don't give a damn about piracy.

Jim: (laughs.) Yeah, but you can't just be for one side. I see Brian's point of view, which reflects how all of us think, which is that file-sharing is far more helpful than it is harmful. But I can also see it from the point of view of companies like NBC. David Green, the man representing NBC at the debate, mentioned that companies were losing $18 billion to piracy, with major motion picture companies losing $6 billion per year. More often than not, the bottom line is, and should be, dollars. Losing that much is cause for concern, so I can see how they would try to restrict use of digital media when they think that it can help prevent such huge losses.

Me: You mentioned that you think the issue is still "underground," that people do not know as much about the issue as they should. Do you think maybe there is a disconnect for people because there's no physical object being taken? When I steal an XBOX 360, there is a physical object that somebody can point to and say, "he stole that." Nobody can see me reach into a computer and steal a few lines of code. Do you think that has any impact on how people view, or fail to view, the situation?

Chris: I think that the issue is still hazy, but I think that is changing. I do think it's hard for people to visualize stealing an "intangible," but with colleges being cracked down on so hard by record companies, I do think awareness is being increased as to what is happening.

Andrew: The root of what is going on has to do with two things: one is the anonymity of the ip address. When you steal the XBOX, not only can people see the object you're taking, but they can see you. When you download a song off the internet, all anybody sees is an ip address. Basically, the record companies and the major media conglomerates are fighting a faceless and massive group of people. They try and make examples of people they find, but there is no identity to "file-sharers" as opposed to an actual thief. The second part of the issue is whether or not we (society) should view art as a commodity. Because you cannot pick up a song and take it around with you, like you can a physical object, intellectual property is different from physical property. I think my intellectual property should be protected from people who want to steal it and claim they made it; I don't think it's the same as my house, though. If someone wants to share my music with another for free, all the more power to them.

Me: Okay guys, here's the classic stock question for bands: who are your influences?

Jim: Queen, Butch Walker.

Bryan: Chile Peppers, Victor Wouton.

Andrew: Led Zeppelin, Soundgarden, Mars Volta, At the Drive-In, any shredders basically.

Chris: Polka. Just kidding. I'm a huge Carter Beaufort fan (drummer from Dave Matthews Band), but other than that, my influences are not drummers so much as guitarists or whole bands. I grew up listening to Tom Petty; he's one of my main influences.

Me: Well fellas, thanks for the interview, and you put on a great show. Now, let's go get drunk and see if we can find out where the hell Peter Griffin lives.

Everyone But Pete: That is a great idea.

Needless to say, much hilarity ensued.
8:49 AM  0 Comments    

Review of Everyone But Pete Band @ Brown University

Oct. 12, Providence, Rhode Island

This past Thursday night, on the campus of Brown University, Washington DC based rock band Everyone But Pete played at the Underground, a coffee shop/bar/music venue on campus. The band played after an hour long debate that was setup by digitalfreedom.org. For more information on what the DigitalFreedom campaign is about, please visit their website at http://www.digitalfreedom.org/. They are going on a national tour of college campuses to try and inform students about what lawmakers and content distributors, such as NBC-Universal (who was represented at the debate) are trying to do to restrict our ability to use digital media as we, the consumers, see fit. I strongly urge my readers to check out http://www.digitalfreedom.org/, if nothing more than the fact that it is a cool website, and I'm featured on it.

Everyone But Pete (EBP) is a four-piece independent band out of DC. Playing to a small crowd in the "Underground," an on-campus, student-run coffee shop (and bar on the weekends), EBP played an eclectic set from about 7 until 9 at night. EBP's sound reminded this reviewer of Matchbox 20, but with a better singer and a heavier sound. Their sound was basic pop-rock, but played well and with great intensity.

To start, lead singer and guitarist Jim Fanale (who also took part in the debate before the concert) played 2 songs by himself, with nothing but an acoustic guitar. The songs, which were reminiscent of James Taylor, were very good, but personally, not my cup of tea. If my eardrums aren't bleeding from severe internal hemorrhaging, I tend to tune the band out.

However, after three songs, the entire band came onstage, and they dove into the meat of their set. Though their music is not exactly the most unique rock 'n' roll I've ever heard, it was nothing short of phenomenal. Their original music, including singles "Carry On" and "Let Go," showed off Fanale's vocal range, as did their cover of "Creep" by legendary band Radiohead. Fanale's brother, Brian, played a walking bass-line under most of the songs, which added a layered feel to the music that is lacking from many pop acts these days; he also provided the backup vocals on every song, creating a very nice harmony that played well over the band's overall hard-rock sound.

Covers by the band included the aforementioned Creep, as well as a great version of "Another Brick in the Wall pt. 2" by Pink Floyd, "Turn the Page" by Bob Seger, and a song by 90's rock band Better than Ezra. Creep and Brick in the Wall were especially well done, as both songs showed off the strengths of the band; in terms of vocals, they did not get any better than Fanale's powerful wailing during the interlude of Creep (which requires both incredible range and power), and lead guitarist Andrew Van Horn played an excellent solo during Brick in the Wall. In fact, he was the first musician I've ever seen make that particular solo his own, as opposed to just regurgitating the classic lines by David Gilmour.

Van Horn's playing style, highly influenced by Led Zeppelin and Soundgarden, became one of the high points of the show. Early on he was restrained to simply chomping out chords and vamps, but after Creep, the gloves came off, and the solos started coming out. Van Horn did not employ a wide range of "gimmicks," or moves as musicians like to call them, preferring a meat and potatoes approach to the guitar; tapping was kept to a minimum, as he seemed to prefer feeling and style over speed, though he still played very fast. These days it seems to me that most guitarists simply play as fast as they can without bothering to infuse any soul into the music, and I hate that. Van Horn, a shredder by trade, did not fall into that trap at all. No better example was the band's cover of Turn the Page, where he faithfully mimicked the famous moaning sax lines from the song without falling into the trap that Metallica did when they covered the song some years ago; though they played the song within their own hard-rock style, they clearly were paying homage to Seger, with Van Horn leading the way.

That all being said, nobody likes everything, and there were parts of the show that I did not care for. However, my gripes mainly had to do with song choice as opposed to sound. Personally, I hated Better Than Ezra when they were crapping up my radio in the mid-90's, and I don't like hearing them now. EBP, late in their set, played that song by Better than Ezra; you know, the one where nobody knows what the hell the guy is saying? The one where he goes, "Wa-uh, it looks goooooooooooddddd when you wa-uh;" I had no idea what was going on in that song ten years ago and I still don't to this very day. I always thought they were saying "walrus." I meant to ask the band about that song, but I forgot. In all fairness, EBP sounded exactly like Better than Ezra during the song, which is a good thing, just not in my opinion.

Finally, drummer Chris Lane needs to get his due. Like most guitarists, I've always believed that the drums are a backing instrument designed to hold a beat; it always drives me nuts when drummers play too loud and/or try to insert themselves in the music when they shouldn't. Chris did not fall into this category at all; in fact, he managed to display his own personality within the music, as opposed to overpowering the music. Playing with only one tom, Chris provided a soft touch on the drums that worked well with the heavy guitars.

All in all, the band was excellent, though they did get me really drunk after the show, so they could have sucked and I still would have had nice things to say about them. They rocked Brown's Underground thoroughly, and the students that did come in were treated to some great music (for free) from a great band.

Everyone But Pete played this past Saturday, October 13th, in Fairfax, VA, at TT Reynolds bar, and their next show is in Philadelphia, at a venue called Grape Street, on October 23rd at 9 PM. Their next local show is on the 27th of October, at James Madison University, at the Godwin Stadium at 3 PM. Please visit their website, http://www.everyonebutpete.com/, or check out their myspace page, http://www.myspace.com/everyonebutpete for more info. Also, check out my interview with the band, as well as my review of Providence, Rhode Island.

Band grade: A-

Vocals: Reminiscent of Rob Thomas, minus the extreme bitch-factor (B+).
Guitars: Ragey (A).
Bass: Rather than just mime the guitar lines, Bryan's bass playing added a nice touch to the riffing (B).
Drums: Exactly what the doctor ordered (A-).
8:35 AM  0 Comments