Yes, you read that correctly.  I am in an epic battle with some very annoying pigeons, and I’m sorry to say that, so far, they are winning.

It all started about 1.5 - 2 weeks ago when I couldn’t go to sleep because of a strange noise I was hearing.  Since I’m a college student, this means the noise started right around 4am, when I was going to bed.  I couldn’t really tell where it was coming from, and I had never heard a noise like it before.  I finally decided it was coming from the apartment above ours, and maybe it was a dog or something, whining.  So, I eventually went to sleep…

The next day I asked everyone else in our apartment if they had heard the noise, but no one had.  Well, that night I went to sleep, and this time, I woke up to the noise.  This annoying, incessant noise.  Luckily, though, Jordy also heard the noise this time — so I wasn’t going crazy.  I started to think about what it could be later that day.  I couldn’t stand listening to it for another 3 hours the next night.  After looking outside and thinking, I noticed that there were pigeons on our neighbor’s balcony.  Interesting….I’ve never seen pigeons around our apartment in the 2 years we’ve lived here.  It must be the pigeons!  So, I searched everywhere on the internet for some sounds clips of pigeon noises, and hooray, I found the noise.  Definitely a pigeon, but not it’s normal cooing noise, no, it was its nesting call.  Great, this is going on right outside my window?

That night I woke to the nesting call again, so I went to our living room and opened the balcony door.  Two pigeons freak out and fly away.  Case solved.  Kind of.  The problem is, I know what the noise is now, but I don’t know how to make them go away.  I’ve woken up 5 nights from these pigeons, and nothing I do makes them stay away for good.  I can scare them with loud noises, but only for them to come back 5 minutes later.  It seems we have a regular pigeon love shack outside on our balcony.  Another problem is that our balcony doors are stupid, and they don’t have screens.  So, one day, like usual, I opened up our balcony door just to get some air circulating.  I walk away for a while, and when I come back, there’s a pigeon standing in the door frame, looking like he’s about to come walking in.  I freak out this time and run to the door to close it.  He leaves when I go running to the door, but really, this is crazy.  Not only are the pigeons waking me up at night, they’re also trying to invade our apartment.  We can no longer open that door for long.

Basically, I’ve now gained a phobia of pigeons because they seem to be stalking me.  And I don’t like it.  Seriously, take a close look at a pigeon: they’re huge birds, red eyes, walking around like they own the place.  They’re creepy.

EDIT:  When I finished writing this post, I heard the noise.  Now it’s during the day, too?  This is horrible.  He must have known I was writing about him, and he came to give me a piece of his mind.

A few weeks ago, while watching an episode of NBC’s Chuck, I found myself enjoying the intentionally eccentric rendition of Toto’s 1982 hit “Africa,” played by the in-show band Jeffster. I’d never cared for the song in the past, but after the episode was over, I nonetheless ended up on YouTube listening to it a few more times. In the comments for the “Trouble in Dreams” review yesterday, I mentioned that I find it interesting when I listen to the exact same song twice, yet have two completely different experiences. In the case of Destroyer, this effect is due to the music itself; however, I think that movies and tv shows can often cause the same change in perception of music (even when the quality of the music might be questionable).

In the Sopranos series finale last year, Journey’s 1981 hit “Don’t Stop Believin’” plays over the closing scene, as Tony and his family sit to eat at a diner. According the The Guardian, sales of this song increased by 482% in the three days following the finale. Similarly, when this song played during a 2003 episode of NBC’s Scrubs, overall retail sales of Journey’s “Greatest Hits” increased 51% for the following week (per Nielson SoundScan).

Taking a quick glance at my DVDs, I thought of two other scenes in movies that, I’d imagine, have produced similar results in album/song sales: “Tiny Dancer” (Elton John) from Almost Famous (2000), and “Stuck in the Middle With You” (Stealers Wheel) from Reservoir Dogs (1992). I had never much liked “Tiny Dancer” before Almost Famous, but now I’ll listen (and usually sing along) when I hear it playing. Similarly, when I was doing some research for my Adventureland review, I read more than a few critics who said that, while they had never been fans of Lou Reed’s “Satellite of Love,” they found themselves downloading the track after watching the film. This all seems to reinforce the notion that the context in which music (or more generally, art) is experienced can significantly change one’s perception of it, which I find to be very interesting.

Given the figures above, it surprises me there has not been much interaction between companies like Apple, Amazon, TiVo, Directv, etc. to get that soundtrack information to users at the source. Especially now that many television manufacturers are including web connectivity with their sets (and trying to bypass the set top box), I would think they could do well by allowing viewers to purchase music (on, say, their iTunes or Amazon accounts) directly from the television.

Trouble in Dreams by Destroyer

While many of the other albums on this list are, in my opinion, among the best albums released in 2008, “Trouble in Dreams” is likely the only one that would appear on the list of my favorite albums of all time. As a few of you already know, I can talk about Destroyer — and this album specifically — for hours, so I’ll try to keep this pretty brief (at least shorter than my earlier, lengthy Adventureland review). For those of you (un)fortunate enough not to already know this — and, I’d imagine, for the vast majority of people, in general — Destroyer is the work of Dan Bejar, who more people are likely to know as one of the singers in the always-enjoyable The New Pornographers.

I made a promise to myself that I would never recommend Destroyer to any of my friends, as I’ve yet to meet anyone who loves Destroyer as much as I do (in fact, most of the people I know seem to barely tolerate it when I’m listening). But, since this isn’t a recommendation, I have no problem with telling you how fantastic Destroyer and “Trouble in Dreams” are. And in the interest of keeping this short, I’ll tell you that the four Destroyer albums before “Trouble in Dreams” (”Streethawk: A Seduction,” “This Night,” “Your Blues,” and “Destroyer’s Rubies”) are all amazing and drastically different albums, each of which is very effective at accomplishing its desired effect. With that in mind, I think that “Trouble in Dreams” is a masterpiece, and one of the best albums ever made.

Like most Destroyer albums, “Trouble in Dreams” evolves as you listen to the album over and over. Upon first listen, one or two songs stand out. On the third listen, four or five songs. By the fifth or so listen, I found myself astounded at how the album I was listening to was not the same album I’d listened to four previous times — every song has amazing moments (even short ones, that you find yourself eagerly awaiting on each listen), evoking varying emotional responses and blending together with the rest of album (that at first seemed so disconnected). The album is called “Trouble in Dreams,” and indeed the music and lyrics reflect a sort of dreamlike or spiritual mood, emphasized by the pervasive, rhythmic drumming that starts to stand out after the first few listens.

Growing up, I can remember listening to countless songs on the radio, cassette, or old records belonging to my parents, and creating, in my mind, what seemed like the most likely lyrics. Even though these were usually wrong, they held meaning to me, as they were part of my unique experience of each piece of music; this wasn’t because my lyrics were better (I’m pretty sure they rarely even made sense), but because those lyrics had grown to have some meaning to me. When I later discovered what the actual lyrics were (thanks, Internet), I usually felt disappointed, and my response to the music afterwards was (at least slightly) different for having this information. In contrast to this, Dan Bejar’s lyrics are always crystal clear, and there is no doubt as to what he is saying. However, as Bejar has said, the lyrics on “Trouble in Dreams” generally don’t mean anything, but are really just combinations of words intended to create a mood or evoke some response. And in this respect, they are very effective. Each listener will associate the lyrics differently in his or her mind, and be able to a create a completely unique experience for him/herself.

Immediate Catchiness: 1/5
Long-Term Playability: 6/5
Favorite Tracks: every track…

On Saturday I attended a three-hour IEEE guitar effects pedal building workshop here at the university. I paid $50, and was given a slew of parts (primary, around 10 resistors, 5 capacitors, a diode, a pcb, four potentiometers, an led, two audio cable jacks, a dc jack, four knobs, a pushbutton switch, and a metal case), then we worked for three hours in an Everitt Lab classroom at assembling the thing. A couple of months ago, I invested in a good quality set of equipment for working on such projects, and probably should have brought these to the workshop, because the given tools were less than ideal (obviously they weren’t going to buy everyone a $100+ soldering iron, as we were only paying for the parts). This and the fact that we were working in a crowded classroom with tiny, angled desks meant that I only got about half of the thing soldered and wired up in the three hours of the workshop. Later, I finished the remaining half in under an hour back at home.

Despite this, I’m really pleased with the result. I’ve owned around a dozen effects pedals throughout the past eight years (since I’ve been playing guitar), and this one has one of the nicest — if not the nicest — sounds, and feels very sturdy. The latter is great, as I’ve smashed about half of my old, plastic-case pedals. As for the former, the guys running the workshop claimed to have tested this pedal against the $120 Electro-Harmonix Metal Muff, and said that theirs easily sounds better. I’m not a big fan of the metal sound (and I’ve never used the Metal Muff), but playing around with the pedal earlier today, I was able to get a crisp distortion to it that I think will fit nicely with the kind of stuff that I do like to play. Finally, I named the pedal “THE CRUSHN8R,” after the robot from Futurama of the same name (”A woman that fine needs to be romanced.”), and in reference to the “crushing” distortion sound of the pedal itself. If I find some time later, I’ll post a sound clip of the pedal in action.

So, I’ve heard of McSweeney’s before, but I never took the time to actually look into any of it further, other than the fact that I knew what it was.  However, I have read “A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius,” by the founder, Dave Eggers, and it’s a great book.  Anyway, the other day, Jordy sent me a link to an article written by Michael Ian Black for a column he has on McSweeney’s.  He’s only written 6 articles, but, in my opinion, they are all great.  Check them out here.

Real Close Ones by The M’s

I’m not really sure how to classify The M’s. I heard their first EP (which is now the first four tracks of their eponymous debut album) in 2003, after they opened for Wilco in a free outdoor concert (whose occurrence still has me amazed), and loved it. It has a garage sound, with twangy guitars and vocals that sound more than a little like George Harrison (especially on “Banishment of Love”), and with so much catchiness and hooks, I figured the only reason it wasn’t playing on the radio was because they were a new band that seemed to be only known in the Chicago area. Then, when The M’s released their sophomore album, “Future Women,” in 2006, I expected to hear it on the radio; while no less catchy than the original, this album was more mature, with the band adding a variety of instruments to their initial garage sound (creating some really unique, beautiful tracks, reminiscent of the later Beatles sound). But nobody seemed to notice, and shortly after, I stopped listening to the radio.

Two years later, “Real Close Ones” brings to mind another famous British rock band: The Rolling Stones. The first time I heard this album, I thought it was good, but not as creative or sprawling as “Future Women.” After another listen or two, I realized how superb the album really was; it was not trying to be “Future Women,” but something entirely different. Like “Exile on Main St.” (one of my all-time favorites), it is occasionally sparse, the vocals are fairly subdued, and the band is often accompanied by blues/gospel piano, brass, and backup singing. The best of these tracks is “How Could You,” (which could easily fit into “Exile” or “Beggars Banquet,” with the Jagger-esque vocals, backing trumpets and pianos, and soul-singing ending), but two no less fantastic tracks deviate from the album’s style in the same manner as “Sympathy for the Devil” and “Gimme Shelter” for the Stones in the late 60s. Specifically, “Naked” is ridiculously catchy, and plays like creepy Harry Nilsson (”Coconut”), and “Big Sound” like a more raucous “Rocks Off.” Overall, there is not a bad track on the entire album. But it’s a shame that this band has not achieved the level of recognition they deserve.

Immediate Catchiness: 2.5/5
Long-Term Playability: 4.5/5
Favorite Tracks: Big Sound, Breakfast Score, Ultraviolent Men, Naked, How Could You

It had been quite a while since I’d painted anything, and two summers ago I tried to remedy that by looking for something interesting in all the photos I’d taken during the drive from Illinois to Seattle. None of these were particularly compelling in their subject matter, so I eventually decided to use the subject from one photo I’d taken (near George, Washington, I believe) as a basis for a painting that reflected the varying colors and shadows from the entire collection of photos, throughout the locations and times of day from the trip. That in mind, the picture ended up with a lot of subtle blues and reds (from sky, mountains, gorges, and badlands), as well as a lot of contrasting lines (a lot of the photos were taken early in the morning or late in the afternoon). I forgot that I had done this until I needed to to use my watercolor pad a few weeks ago to make a picture of a prototype for a project that I’m working on, at which point it, like confabuler, was resurrected, and I figured I might as well stick it in a post.

EDIT: The picture above was taken with my digital camera, and while the colors look close to correct on some of my monitors (the ones with glossy screens), they look faded out and yellowed on another (with a matte screen). Sadly, I don’t think this can be avoided, since different monitors will display colors differently.

Last Friday, Corinne and I went to see what we anticipated would be Superbad In an Amusement Park, and I was very pleasantly surprised to instead find a thoughtful, romantic, relevant film that is undoubtedly my favorite of 2009 (and probably of 2008, as well).

Written and directed by Greg Mottola — who’s most recent claim to fame was, of course, 2007’s Superbad — Adventureland is about as far from Superbad as it could be, while remaining in the same genre and attracting the same audience. Superbad, while hilarious and undeniably fun, moved quickly and left little room for any character development, and by the end of the film, I felt little more of a connection with the central characters than I did within the first ten minutes of the film. Furthermore, I had problems relating to the characters who (at least four or five years ago) should have been somewhat relatable (maybe this is because I wasn’t much of party person, I don’t know), which left the movie as being hilarious, but ultimately vacuous. Of course, the latter issue is not so much the fault of the movie; like any piece of art, a film will have more significance to some people than others (and in this case, for me, it had less).

That in mind, Adventureland certainly struck a chord that few movies in recent years have. In an interview, Greg Mottola described his motivations for the film as “melding Dazed and Confused-type nostalgia movies about the 80s with a very intimate story of first love.” Judging by the reactions of the audience — after the movie was over, an older gentleman sitting next to Corinne smiled and said to no one in particular, “Very good.” — most of the older people in the audience (i.e. not the kids in the front rows who were there for the (notably absent) penis jokes and gross-out scenes) seemed to appreciate the nostalgia of both the time period and young love.

In a nutshell, Adventureland tells the story of a recent college graduate whose life is changed by a summer working at a shitty local amusement park after his plans for the future are halted financially by his father being “demoted” from his old job. This much you can get from the atrociously misleading trailer which, after its (seeming) purpose of attracting the aforementioned “younger” demographic during the film’s first few weeks in theaters has ended, will hopefully be replaced by a better one that is more accurate to the true nature of the film; anything less would be robbing the film of a deserved larger audience.

After the characters have all been introduced, the mood of the film changes in a scene with the Velvet Underground’s “Pale Blue Eyes,” which does an excellent job of setting the atmosphere for the remainder of the film; like the song (and unlike Superbad, as mentioned above), it moves at a mellow pace, and is simultaneously sweet and stark. James, the lead character (played by Jesse Eisenberg), has just returned home after graduating from college. Faced with a need to get a summer job after James’ father loses his, he soon realizes that a bachelor’s degree in comparative literature and Renaissance studies doesn’t make him qualified for any “real world” position. Later in the film, Joel (played by a hilariously droll Martin Starr, a la Bill from Freaks and Geeks), when asked what career track a degree in Russian literature and Slavic languages leads to, he replies, “Cabbie. Hot Dog Vendor. Marijuana delivery guy.” Sadly, this is not far from the truth; Corinne’s father (who is himself a professor of philosophy), likes to say that a bachelor’s degree in the liberal arts gets you the title of “manager” in a Wal-Mart (or, alternatively, as Joel also says in the film, “doing the work of pathetic, lazy morons”). As unfortunate as this might be, it is clear why: the most relevant jobs in these departments are often in teaching, and since these areas of research don’t bring in big money (from alums, for instance, as engineering or business might), good positions are scarce. (I’ve recently learned of a program at this university that seeks to merge engineering research (specifically in computer science) with that of the humanities, which I think is a fantastic idea, and will hopefully bring more money and interest to such departments that are in need of both.)

Digressing, James is forced to take a position at a local run-down amusement park, after he finds that being more knowledgeable than 70% of the country’s population (if a college degree means anything) can’t even get him a job waiting tables or driving a cement mixer. There, he meets park owners Bobby and Paulette (Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig — both hilarious, as usual, and not overused) who immediately peg him as a “games guy,” which in the park seems to be a metaphor for the disaffected young intellectuals working the game stands (Joel and Em, played by a fantastic Kristen Stewart).

Unlike most movies in the genre — and, arguably, most movies in general — the main characters are all presented in a way that you can empathize (or sympathize) with each of them. (Consider The Simpsons and Family Guy — while both shows are (debatably) funny, you generally care for all of the Simpson family members, while the same is not true for the Griffins (in fact, the opposite might be true)). I have read the original script for the film, and this was not necessarily the case there; several of the characters play more like those from Superbad, while in the film, they come off more like those of (the excellent) Freaks and Geeks. In the script, Connell (the cool-guy-rocker-turned-maintenance-man played by Ryan Reynolds) comes off as a sleazy, womanizing bastard, who clearly uses Em and other young, impressionable women to satiate desires not fulfilled by his crappy marriage. In the film, however, Reynolds plays Connell as more of a tragic character; while many of the youths working at the park are destined for better things, he is stuck there for life, and appearing cool to vulnerable girls (and then sleeping with them) is the only thing he has left that keeps him from facing how shitty his life is. In particular, the unspoken understanding between James and Connell towards the end of the film, where it is finally revealed that Connell never jammed with Lou Reed (his main selling point with the park’s youth), is perfectly executed.

That said, this was the first time I have seen Jesse Eisenberg (James); he plays his character solidly, and is believable as a witty, albeit slightly pretentious, innocent. Similarly, this is the only thing I’ve seen Kristen Stewart in (aside from 2002’s Panic Room, during which I remember thinking that “the little girl” did a really good job). While I haven’t seen Twilight (and don’t plan on seeing it any time in the near future), she gives the standout performance in this film. This might be due to the fact that her character’s personality is similar to her own (which seems to be at least partially the case, from some interviews with her that I’ve watched online), but she regardless nails the character, and was genuinely fun to watch — the last actor that had that affect on me was Ryan Gosling in Lars and the Real Girl and Fracture; I could watch those movies just to see his acting in them. There is a particular scene in the film, in which James and Em are watching Joel play an arcade game at the park; Em’s is subtly fidgeting and looking around, and her conversational contribution sounds distant, making it seem as if she has something/someone else on her mind (which, we find, she does). I love moments like this in films, because it’s the way people behave in real life — sure, you could simply deliver your lines, but actions often speak louder than words; in life, people generally do small things like this for reasons, and acting gives the opportunity to choreograph such actions to bring more life to films. Furthermore, this scene was not in the script, which makes me wonder where or from whom this inspiration came.

While on the topic of what people do in real life, Adventureland contains two elements that I love seeing in films. First, there is a dichotomy present in almost all of the leading characters. James is innocent, intelligent, and likable, yet at the same time can be pretentious and overly naive. On the other hand, Joel is also intelligent, but gives in to (his perceived ultimate fate of) being a loser. Em is capable of love and making good relationships, but is filled with self-loathing that causes her to makes bad, unhealthy decisions. And (as previously mentioned), Connell is a tragic douchebag. This is all consistent with my experiences in life — despite what Disney might want children to think, there are almost always no clean-cut notions of good and evil or right and wrong in people. We all make good choices and bad choices, do things that we will be ashamed of later. That’s life, and it’s refreshing when art reflects it. Second, the film enforces the notion that “everything is going to be alright.” At the end of the movie, we aren’t sure whether James will go to graduate school at Columbia (his initial goal at the beginning of the movie), or take a job as a journalist (as he does in the script), but it doesn’t really matter. A lot of films would be sure to establish such an ending, if for no other reason then to please the audience. Well, sometimes shit happens, and things don’t turn out the way you might have expected them to. (This was an one of the things that I respected about Knocked Up — the plot wasn’t about remedying a crappy situation, it was about dealing with it.) But usually everything turns out alright.

Finally, I’ve failed to mention one of the most pervasively excellent parts of the film — the soundtrack; throughout, we are delivered great, mood-setting tracks by the likes of Lou Reed, The Velvet Underground, Big Star, The Cure, David Bowie, The Rolling Stones, and The Replacements (among others). One of the biggest discrepancies between the script and the final result is that, in the film, the element that ties everything together is Lou Reed — Connell’s shtick revolves around him, and “Satellite of Love” almost becomes the anthem for the film (both within in the plot and the soundtrack) — whereas in the script, the focus is instead on Neil Young. In my mind, these two people personify entirely distinct moods, and I think the film would have been very different if this change had not been made. At the same time, it’s an interesting change to make, and I would be very curious to find out what the impetus for it was. Similarly, the script called for Brian Eno’s beautiful “Taking Tiger Mountain” to play during the scene after James and Em get out of the swimming pool; instead, this was replaced in the film by Big Star’s “I’m in Love With a Girl,” which ended up being perfect for that scene.

For our last spring break ever, Jordy and I headed out to the Seattle area to look at apartments and visit family.  After looking online, we had basically decided that we’d rather get a nice big (cheap!) apartment in Bellevue (about 8 miles from Seattle) and make the decently short commute to work rather than spend more money for a smaller apartment in the city.  Also, we’ve already done the ‘living in the city’ thing, so it’s not too big of a deal to try living somewhere else.

For those of you not familiar with the area, Bellevue is quite an interesting city.  It is identified now as an edge city because while it might be viewed as suburban, it has the population of an urban core city.  Bellevue was also #1 on CNNMoney’s list of the best places to live and launch businesses.  Therefore, Bellevue == not too shabby.

So, anyway, we basically only looked at apartments in and around downtown Bellevue, and I think we came out with many great options.  We spent around 2-3 full days just viewing apartments, and fortunately, since we won’t be moving until July, there was a large available variety in the kinds of places and locations that we liked.  Hopefully, when the time comes, we’ll be able to grab one of our favorites!

The rest of our trip consisted of visiting Jordy’s family in Vancouver for a couple of days and staying with my brother in Redmond.  Last summer was my first time visiting Vancouver, and, while I haven’t visited too many cities, Vancouver is one of the coolest looking cities I’ve ever seen (the water and mountains help with that).  Redmond, on the other hand, is not a big city, but more of a Disneyworld resort — parks, perfectly cut green grass, nice people, trees everywhere.  I’m just not used to that.  Both are great places though, and we had a lot of fun while we were out there.

Oh, by the way, when we were flying back home, we had a layover in Las Vegas, so I got to do my first Vegas gambling in the airport.  I only had 2 dollars and lost them both.  Thanks Vegas!