Opinion: The Album Versus the Single

A battle as old as the sale of music. A full-length album versus the one standout track. Which is better for the consumer? Which will make more money for the distributor? Which presents the artist at their best?

In the early days of records, singles were king because full-length albums were so damned expensive (do correct me if I have my facts wrong; this is coming from people who lived in that age). Then, with the rise of the CD format, albums sold more and more. Ironically, many people would buy a full album, even if they only cared about one or two songs on it. Then came the digital age, when music became harder to sell because it was easy to obtain. I'm not just talking about piracy here. You can hear just about any single by searching for it on YouTube. That, of course, is one of a huge number of sources of free music, many legal and many not.

I've always been a big fan of the album as a format. When thought is put into it, it is far more than just a collection of songs. It is a complete work of art, of which a song is only a contributing piece. For this reason, I haven't bought a single in years, even through digital download. If I don't own the full album, I feel like I'm missing out on something. I could easily give examples of albums that work far better as a whole than they do as individual songs (Pink Floyd, anyone?), but I think this applies to any music in some way.

But is my attachment to the album format justified? So many people now download songs a la carte for their iPods. I wouldn't dare presume that I am somehow a greater music lover than all these people. Maybe the individual song has at last overtaken the album as the dominant form of music as art; this time, not only because of the cost.

Artists and labels are reacting as you might expect. Albums are frequently marketed almost entirely on their featured singles, and the "filler" songs are made to sound as much like it as possible (I present, for your consideration as evidence, Kesha's Animal). Even independent artists are increasingly distributing their music by download only. Not only is it cheaper, but they just don't sell that many physical CDs anymore. Indie musician and writer Brian Hazard has not only announced that his most recent album will be his last to take physical form, but he now advocates using the internet as the only means of self-promotion for indie artists. Pristina, an indie electropop band, have announced that in addition to going all digital, they will no longer be producing albums and will sell all of their music from now on as singles.

Is this trend destined to carry over to major labels? If current trends continue, which is very likely, they will soon be selling more singles than albums anyway, and the majority of those sales will be digital. Why shouldn't they just make more of them and abandon albums entirely?

What do the consumers want? To me personally, it is tragic, but I believe the reality is that singles are better for the consumer. This trend is no coincidence. People are buying singles because they are the songs they like. It is not just marketing. Songs are available a la carte from full albums, and consumers frequently buy them that way. They can handpick their favorites from different artists and different albums. It may not be my preferred way of listening to music, but it is how the majority of consumers prefer to enjoy music now. I think the evidence suggests that it would be no different in any other time, if they had had the same distribution methods we have now. That said, something precious is lost by listening to music this way. More on that later.

What about the artists? Speaking as an amateur musician myself, I think artists will be the ones to hold tight to the album format to the bitter end. An album is the artist's work. To lose it would be like losing the full scope of a mural in favor of painting only its most prominent feature. This is how I feel, and I am not alone, but I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. Many artists see the song, not the album, as the main focus of their work. Perfection to them is crafting one really solid hit. Success is selling it.

Though I disagree, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that way. After all, an album really is just a bunch of songs. If it were meant to be something whole, it would really just be one long song, right? Everyone has a favorite song from each album, so who cares if they even listen to the others (consistently)? If the industry abandons the album format and moves to singles exclusively, what do we really lose?

Subtlety. Yes, I'm aware that that's hardly something that most listeners care about, usually. But somewhere in the act itself of listening to a collection of songs in one sitting ties them together and changes the experience. When it first came out, I listened to "Human" by The Killers and gave it a big shrug. Then I listened to the album Day and Age and--while I wasn't exactly enthralled with it--had a totally different experience that made the songs seem to somehow work. Had I not done that, I probably would have shrugged it off completely and never listened to "Human" again. Granted, this is based on personal experience and also on a band that I don't actually follow consistently. Still, in my experience, listening to an album has always affected my attitude toward the single(s) in some way, usually positively. Let me give a slightly more objective example. Green Day's famous album American Idiot is both popular and highly acclaimed. The singles from the album are hit or miss; some people really enjoy them on their own, but a lot of people don't care for them. It is widely accepted that the album was a success because it was crafted as a coherent whole, to the point where it is commonly thought of as a punk rock opera and recently a Broadway musical was produced using its songs. That is the sort of thing we will lose if the album format dies.

There is one more important thing we would lose: songs that don't matter. Bear with me for a minute. Simon & Garfunkel's third album, Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme, ends with a song called "7 o'clock News / Silent Night." It consists of two parts that play simultaneously. One is the duo singing a minimalistic rendition of "Silent Night." The other is a (presumably made-up) reading in the style of a news broadcast, featuring talk of war, murder, and civil rights. The relative volume of the two tracks changes over the course of the song. I don't think I even need to tell you that this would have never made it as a single. Yet it closes the album in a way that no other song would have been able to. There is a brief article about the song on Wikipedia that goes into a bit more detail and includes quotes from critics who call the song "chilling, grim, ironic, and prophetic." This song is an obvious example if you've heard the album, but even modern albums--good ones--are loaded with songs that would never make it in a market of just songs. If you listen for them and think about it, you'll see why the artist chose to include them and why they are valuable or beautiful in their own way.

Do I really think that albums will fade away entirely? No, at least not for a good while still, because they do still sell. But the trend is very clearly moving away from them. People are either buying only individual songs, or they are selectively listening via playlists and whatnot. This is fine if it's what people want. But I hope that music lovers will not be the ones to accidentally kill the album, or else we will lose many of the things that made us love music in the first place, possibly without even realizing what we had.

Brent Weeks: The Black Prism Review

This will be a first for me: a review of a book. It's an experiment, so we'll see how it goes. Feel free to let me know what you think of my evaluation in the comments, even if you haven't read the book. An added note for those of you who follow me on Goodreads. On Goodreads, I do reviews and ratings based purely on my own enjoyment. Here, however, I will be attempting to evaluate literature the way I do movies: as objectively as I can. One more note for those who don't know me personally. I watch a lot of movies, so you've seen mostly movie reviews from me. With books, I read almost entirely sci-fi and fantasy, so if you have no interest in those genres, most of my book reviews won't mean much to you. But there won't be that many of them in the first place.

This time we have a new hardcover fantasy novel from NYT Bestseller Brent Weeks, The Black Prism, the first in his likely 3-book Lightbringer series. A significant departure from the world of his popular Night Angel trilogy, The Black Prism takes us to a new world in which magic is common and has a significant impact on peoples' lives.

The story follows two main characters and several other major characters. The main characters are Gavin Guile, the Prism (or Emperor, basically, or if you prefer, Battle Pope), and his presumed bastard son, 15-year-old Kip. When Gavin finds out he has a bastard, his world begins to crumble. Kip has been raised by a crack whore (equivalent) mother, until he discovers who his real father is and is swept into a world of magic and riches. Other characters give us a glimpse into family life, university (equivalent) life, and Gavin's past.

All of this happens very quickly. Weeks is known for fast action and short chapters. For this book, he slows it down a bit, but it still flows much faster than most fantasy novels. Nearly every chapter transitions to another character's viewpoint. This is something that Weeks handles very well. When we see the world through Kip's eyes, it is described as he would see it. If Weeks describes it from Gavin's perspective, he will ignore many of the details that make the world so woundrous to Kip. We also hear a lot of brief internal monologues, Robert Jordan style. This can get annoying in excess, but it generally works well and especially in Kip's case, it gives a good idea of what's going through the head of a socially awkward 15-year-old.

As interesting as Gavin and Kip's stories are, I think it's the supporting cast that makes this book stand out. Karris gives an important second perspective on Gavin and ends up being an interesting character on her own. Her story is not developed as much as I would have liked, but it is set up so that he can go into more detail in the next book, so I really hope he does. Liv is a student who gets forced into a tough situation. Her story provides some important conflicts for the other characters. Gavin's brother Dazen is perhaps my favorite supporting character. He only gets a little bit of screen time in the book, but he is frequently mentioned regarding his ties to Gavin. He begins the book in prison. Anyone who has read Shadow's Edge knows that Weeks handles bizarre prison scenes very well (either that or I have a strange fascination with them) and it is just as apparent here, but in a smaller dose.

A lot has been said about Weeks' world building and the unique system of magic in The Black Prism. I will agree that the world is both more interesting and more fleshed out than the world of the Night Angel trilogy. That said, he intentionally avoids getting as in-depth with world building as, say, Tolkein or Jordan. I prefer it this way because it keeps the plot moving when he doesn't have to subtly contruct everything in detail, but some people who like fantasy worlds that truly feel real might be a bit disappointed. The magic is unique and involved. My only gripe with it is that some scenes of dialogue are clearly written just so the reader can better understand how the magic works.

My guess is that people will either love or hate the ending of this book. Personally, I loved it because it is exactly the kind of ending that I think each installment in a series should have. It resolves all of the conflicts that are central to this novel specifically, but it leaves open the stories that will carry across the series. Some readers might call him out on a cliffhanger ending, but I would argue that everything important to this novel's story is over with; if you don't want to read on, you don't have to and you still got the whole story. But it makes it abundantly clear that there will still be more to come if you want to read on. To me, this is a perfect straddling of the middle ground between Terry Brooks' first series, in which each book had no direct connection to the others, and Robert Jordan's, in which each book is more of a chapter in one very very long story.

I haven't really seen any of this myself, but I would imagine that many readers will find Kip very annoying. Okay, I admit it. Kip annoyed the piss out of me to the point where I got tired of reading his chapters. But here's the thing. Kip is one of the best representations of a 15-year-old male I've ever seen in literature. I'm not sure if you remember being 15 (especially if you were socially awkward), but Kip should annoy the piss out of you, especially since you're not only hearing what he says but also what's going on in his head. It might sound like his annoyingness just isn't worth it, but we do get two important things from it. First is some humor, which is appropriate, in its place, to the novel's tone but wouldn't fit well with most of the other characters. Second is the youthful perspective. Without Kip, Gavin would have very little to grow on as a character and the reader would lack his sense of wonder and slowly growing understanding of the world. And Kip does get his small share of badassery down the road. I don't really think it was necessary for me to take a whole paragraph to defend him because I think Weeks handles him well enough that most readers will understand why he's a main character and just maybe even relate to him a bit. But I understand, there just might be a bit too much of him and he can get tiring.

Fantasy readers know there's a lot of quality stuff out there, if they know where to look and what their own tastes are. Weeks is difficult to compare with some of the classics and masters, but I think he manages to stand out, probably even more than he did in the popular Night Angel series. I also think The Black Prism is much more accessible than The Way of Shadows, which could be polarizing. I hope that wider audiences will take notice and give it a chance. It's not exactly groundbreaking, but it is a great story that's well-thought-out and a lot of fun to read. I certainly recommend it to anyone who liked The Night Angel, and also to anyone who likes non-military fantasy.

Caius's rating: 4 stars

Opinion: The Future of Video Games

Up until now, I have used this blog strictly as a venue for movie and music reviews. Two things have made me reconsider using it this way. One, I don't have the time or money to see movies and buy new music often, and I haven't done a review since the middle of the summer. Two, this blog is about entertainment, which includes more forms of art than I've been reviewing. I've avoided book reviews because I read almost exclusively for enjoyment and don't feel confident judging a book's merits fairly. And I've avoided video games because I tend to be biased against many of the titles that are critically acclaimed (I think Grand Theft Auto 4 is rubbish, and not for any ethical reasons). I'm starting to consider evaluating these media anyway. I thought I'd test the waters, or open the door, by sharing an opinion on the direction video games are headed and how it will affect gamers and popular culture.

Motion Control
Whether you like to admit it or not, the Nintendo Wii changed video games, probably forever. Not only did it overturn a method of control more than 20 years old, it introduced the world of gaming to previously untapped audiences: "casual" gamers, senior citizens, even the fucking fitness crowd. And at the same time, it delivered "hardcore" gaming action to returning Nintendo fans. I would not be alone in arguing that Nintendo largely dropped the ball on the latter crowd in favor of expanding the former, but that horse is long dead so I won't go there. In any case, gaming became different. The way it was done and the way it was viewed from the outside changed. And boy, did it make some money.

Nintendo is still rolling in it, and Microsoft and Sony so desperately wanted a piece of the pie that they are finally releasing their own motion controllers for their existing consoles: The Xbox Kinect and Playstation Move, both targeted at Nintendo's crowd, and both outstandingly expensive. To my surprise, both companies have made it no secret that they expect huge sales from these controllers and their games. I'm no economist, and I have no opinion polls or market data, but I think there is reason to believe that both of these ventures will be enormous failures.

The Playstation Move is, essentially, identical to the Wii controller, only better. Oh, right, and more expensive. And it only has about five games to rival the hundreds available for Nintendo's four-year-old console. I ask, who in their right mind would pay more than double the price for a console in order to play five average games? I know what you're thinking: But they're targeting people who already own a PS3, so it won't be that expensive. My response: No they're not! Sure, they would love for PS3 owners to buy their cool new controller, but don't forget their demographics. Current PS3 owners are predominantly "core" gamers and Blu-Ray enthusiasts. Very few of them care how they control their games, and even those that do have no desire to pay $100 in hopes that there just might be a great game for the Move someday. No, Move targets families who were thinking of buying a Wii for their family game nights this Christmas. "But look here first; this one's better!" they'll say. But like I said, the price difference is more than twice the price of the Wii console when you factor in all parts of the PS3 and Move. And no non-gamer is going to take that alternative. The Move will be quietly set aside to the realm of the Virtual Boy, a failed experiment that just wasn't meant to be.

Microsoft's Kinect is a bit more ambitious. Instead of utilizing a controller, per se, it uses an advanced camera to detect your body movements. The potential advantage is that it could provide the most immersive gaming experience to date. The disadvantage? There are no games that show any of this potential on display. It's all talk. The most talked-about game for Kinect is Child of Eden, an ambitious display of colors flying at you in which you use your hands to shoot at these colors. What? Yeah. I think the highest potential for Kinect to be a success is in fighting games, which could potentially match the player's movements very accurately. To my knowledge, none have even been announced for the controller. In the end, the games won't sell it to Xbox owners, and the price tag will again turn non-gamers away. I can't imagine a way that it can succeed.

If I'm proved wrong on this, I will truly be stunned because I just don't see who would actually buy the new motion controllers. But it could happen. If it does, perhaps gaming will take a more drastic turn in the next generation.

The Next Generation
With motion control being the new big selling point, what will the next generation be like? And since two of the hardware giants only just released their new controllers, when will we actually see the next generation arrive?

I'll start with Nintendo, because I think they're the easiest to predict. In the last two generations, they saw two other companies get a big advantage in sales by releasing their product a year before the competition. The Playstation 2 is still the best selling home console to date. Nintendo is now in a perfect position to seize this edge, and I think they will take it. I expect to see a new Nintendo console just in time for Christmas 2012, and I don't think it will even be announced or hinted at until around spring of 2012. By maintaining secrecy, they hold the ace over Sony and Microsoft, both of which have explicitly said that they expect the current generation to last at least five more years. With the late announcement and quick release, Nintendo will release a new high definition, motion-controlled console. Its power will only slightly exceed that of the PS3. I expect the controller will be very similar to the Wii, except it will be able to detect motion much faster and more accurately. Oh yeah, and you can bet it will be 3-D capable. They will still make a good batch of "casual" games to continue its winning streak, but they will take advantage of their edge in timing and grab as many "core" gamers as they can. I think we can safely expect either a Mario, Zelda, or Metroid title at launch; my guess goes to the latter, because it will steal the "core" gamers better than Mario, and Zelda games tend to take the longest to make. In addition, Nintendo will make a big deal out of third party support, especially from Sega, which is already a strong ally, and perhaps some new support. SquareEnix? I'm not calling it now, but I could see it. To maintain the same competitive advantage they have now, the new console will cost $300 or less at launch and will include Wii Sports 3.

Sony and Microsoft will not be expecting this, but they can certainly see it happening, so I'm sure they are already tossing around ideas and prototypes for the next generation. A lot depends on the success of Move and Kinect, but here's what I think will happen. Not to be outdone by Nintendo's announcement, Microsoft will announce a new, more powerful HD console, with no motion controls whatsoever, and a new Halo title to go with it. It will release in time for Christmas 2013. Microsoft has very stupidly shunned the Blu-Ray format, and they will fight it to the death. And this is where they will live or die. The DVD-only console will flout its advanced digital distribution formats with a user-friendly online store with prices comparable to physical disks. Xbox Live will get an overhaul of some kind, which will likely involve new features and more detailed social networking of its own. In short, the new console will be touted as THE console for hardcore gamers, frat boys, and manly men who like action movies and naked women. But its success or failure will not be determined by its demographics like it was in this generation. It will be determined by gamers' acceptance or rejection of improved motion control and by the success or failure of digital distribution over physical media. As a result, it has the potential to be the biggest success of the new generation by far, but it also has the potential to be a truly epic failure.

Even in the face of Move's failure, Sony will not abandon motion control so easily. In essence, it will be a re-release of Move, but this time, it will be the new console's only controller and it will be packaged and priced appropriately. The processing power will rival Microsoft's new console and will launch at around the same time in 2013. It will be marketed on the use of motion control in "hardcore" games, which will be seen as an edge over both consoles, and also on the Blu-Ray compatability, which neither of its competitors will feature. It will feature extensive online and multimedia functionality, but it will not have digital game distribution like Microsoft. The Playstation 4 (I think it's safe to call a name on this one) will be the "happy medium" of the generation, the everyman console, just as the Playstation 2 was last time and the PS3 hoped to be this time. In order to compete, I'm guessing it will launch with either Final Fantasy 15 (good luck) or Metal Gear Solid 5.

But there will be a fourth competitor this time around. A presence I can so strongly foresee that I would honestly be more surprised if it didn't enter the video game field. I think Apple will release a new console nothing like the others. It's difficult to guess what it would be like, but here's how I could imagine it working. For starters, the price will be made to match Nintendo's. It will have no physical game disks at all. It will have an extensive online game store through which all of its games will be sold. And you better believe there will be apps. Lots of them. And downloadable HD movies, and full compatibility with iTunes, Netflix, and any other digital media you can imagine. It will be marketed as one multimedia box to rule them all, the console to end all consoles. The controller could very well be a touch pad, or some simplified emulation of a mouse and keyboard. I doubt that it will come in first in the next generation, but it will still likely bring in big bucks from some gamers and many Apple enthusiasts. Apple's console will come out of nowhere and be a force to be reckoned with.

Digital Media
I've already talked some about the war over digital media. But I think it will be much more than just a battle between digital downloads and Blu-Ray Disks. Downloadable content for games will explode (and yes, I realize this is largely a bad thing for gamers, but it's a good thing for corporations, so I think it will happen). Expansion packs will be download-only, but their importance will increase. Games will more frequently end in cliffhangers, in order to entice gamers to continue the story with a downloadable expansion. Gameplay mechanics will be withheld for purchasable updates. And other content like weapons will be downloadable a la carte, just like a lot of the content for games like The Sims.

In addition, games will be made into movies, but instead of adaptations, they will be made from the games themselves. You heard right. Some developers have already hinted that they'd like to capitalize on this someday. Think about it. Cinematic cutscenes in games are at a high point in quality and, in some cases, provide some really impressive and interesting storytelling. Now imagine if you could take all of those and put them together. It sounds so simple, it's hard to imagine it not being done. But, it would still be incomplete. Developers will plan for this and create additional scenes to fill in the gaps, so that when it's all put together, it will make one coherent movie, usually 1-3 hours long depending on the game, that you can watch anytime--for a price. Will people buy it? Let me ask this. How many of you loved Final Fantasy X? How many of you would watch it again if it were in the form of a 2-hour movie, instead of a 40-hour game? I would. In fact, I'd share it with my family, who I imagine could get into the story and the action, but wouldn't appreciate the gameplay. Storytelling has and will continue to improve, and this idea will start to sound better and better to developers, and I think gamers will bite.

This is minor, but I have no doubt we'll see a surge in video game soundtrack sales once they're available for download right beside the game (and movie).

The Far Future
Beyond the next generation, I think innovation in gaming will come less in distribution and more in immersion. For example, I think OnLive will not be the enormous success that people once thought it could be. And in concept, it was extraordinary. Many years ahead, I expect that augmented reality will be a big deal in video games. For those not familiar with it, imagine that you have a toy castle with a camera pointed at it, and you watch what the camera sees on the screen. But on the screen, there are also little soldiers that appear to wander around your castle, and they will react to walls, turn corners, and step over obstacles. In other words, virtual objects interact with real objects. This sort of thing can already be done, but it has no application in video games. Yet.

I could also see virtual reality working out well. Imagine wearing a helmet that gives you a view just like in a video game, but it fills your vision completely. And it's in 3-D, of course. With a console like that, you would really feel like you're there.

This is more of a stretch perhaps, but mass multiplayer games could take off in a big way down the road. The level of virtual interaction would become increasingly real in ways that I can't begin to predict. Real money would buy all sorts of virtual gear, new areas to explore, and added functionality to enormous, constantly evolving virtual worlds filled with user-created content and people from around the world. It will become less of a solitary experience and more of a legitimate social interaction--but in the form of a game.


Your Opinions
My opinions are only based on my own view of the market and pure speculation about the future. Gaming will undoubtedly see some big changes, but it could go any number of directions. Could you see my predictions happening? Do you have some other ideas? Talk to me in the comments below.

The Last Airbender Review

It might seem like a waste of time to bother writing a review of Shyamalan's latest. The reviews were bound to be horrible from the start: It's a film by one of the most hated (or at best, polarizing) directors in Hollywood, and it's an adaptation of a popular cartoon. I don't want to just write an essay defending it, but given the "critical consensus," I do intend to argue why this film's merits make it worthwhile for some viewers, despite some serious flaws.

Let's get this out of the way. This movie is for fans of the TV series, and for people who probably would like the show if they took the time to watch it. Avatar: The Last Airbender is an attempt to Westernize Japanese storytelling methods. It uses an art style similar to popular anime cartoons and contains elements of Eastern philosophy and religion. The fantasy setting allows for a great sense of magic and wonder, with equal parts action, humor, and melodrama in the story. If you like the series for all these things, then you are set up to like the movie, as it is designed to be very much the same in these regards. Many moviegoers and critics will see The Last Airbender expecting something different, and to them, it can easily appear to be just a hot mess.

That said, some aspects of this movie are a hot mess. For starters, there's the plot. The first half of the movie is a poor attempt at giving a Cliffnote rundown of the series. Shyamalan still tries to combine family-friendly action with the wondrous, artistic approach he's known for. But here, it just feels disjointed and incoherent. In the second half, the script is just as bad as in the first, but the plot brings its focus to a much more manageable sequence of events.

Many people have noted the bad acting in the movie. To a point, I strongly disagree. I think the real problem is in the script, which frequently does not allow for coherent storytelling or realistic character interaction. The actors, however, do a good job of filling the shoes of characters in a fantasy world. While the way they act might seem very unrealistic to us, it actually is fitting for a world unlike our own. Shyamalan has done well with this previously in The Village, and it is just as noticeable here, if you can suspend your disbelief that far.

I briefly mentioned earlier that the series was successful in creating a sense of wonder with its fantasy action and attractive artwork. Replicating this feeling is the one place where the film shines, and it is a huge selling point. You don't need to see it in 3-D to be blown away by the floating water, the dance-like magic, and the spirit world. This film is visually and aurally beautiful, and I think it's the best argument in recent years for why the otherwise incompetent M. Night should still be allowed to make movies. At the very least, let him finish this trilogy.

Yes, if you go to see this film, one part of you will have to acknowledge that it's a special effects movie. At the same time, you will have to take it for what it is and allow yourself to be sucked into another world, not to mention that you will have to get used to a style of storytelling that is largely unfamiliar to American audiences. As if that's not enough, it seems to awkwardly straddle the line between a kids' movie and a PG-13 fantasy epic. But despite some substantial flaws, The Last Airbender is just effective enough to suck you in and--dare I say--move you like few films can... if you let it. I don't think I need to say at this point that it's not for everyone. Most typical moviegoers will have every reason to dislike it. But for those that can appreciate it for its merits, there is a surprising amount to appreciate.

Caius's rating: 3 stars

Leiahdorus: Ode to the Builders Review

Leiahdorus has done it again. And what I actually mean is, they've done something entirely different. Ode to the Builders is a relatively ambitious album for the indie synthpop band, but for the most part, it works and represents a maturing of the band's style.

The first obvious change is the addition of a real drummer and more present guitars (is that a guitar solo I hear?). To my relief, I found that they had not abandoned their electro style in favor of a more mainstream indie rock sound. Instead, it's just closer to an even blend than it had been. The opening song, "They Have Eyes" is the biggest showcase for their style, not to mention that it's easily the most accessible song they have ever done. The featured songs from previous albums enchanted genre listeners for their uniqueness, but let's face it; not all of your friends would be able to listen to it and say, "Damn, that's a good song." "They Have Eyes" gives you that.

The title song is what I really think of as the beginning of the album. It sets a far darker tone than the band's previous albums have had. It also establishes a musical direction for the remainder of the songs, although not all of them are as consistently strong (more on that later). It's a great song, nuff said.

"Childhood's End" is where the accessibility ends and I'm reminded of the old Leiahdorus. Not that this is a bad thing, but some may be very suddenly turned off by the sharp increase in "weirdness." Or should I say uniqueness? That depends on your ability to stomach it. If you're a fan of Leiahdorus already, you should feel right at home. It's for the sake of the new listeners that I think it might have been better to save "Childhood's End" for later in the album to ease the musical shift a bit.

This is only the beginning of the awkward transitions and sharp shifts. "When Hello Meets Goodbye" would have been a much better candidate to follow "Ode to the Builders" than "Childhood's End," although the latter is the better song overall. "Forward Blindly" borders on heavy with a pounding distorted bass and high electric guitar in 6/8 meter. It, too, feels out of place, despite being one of the better songs.

"Malory" is track 6. From there forward the album goes downhill. That's not to say it gets bad, but it (quite suddenly) mellows out tremendously and lacks any real standout tracks. "Malory" is a pretty little tune and little more. "Snow in July" is enchanting, yet too repetitive for its own good; even though it's relatively short already, it could have been shorter for the sake of avoiding the stale feeling it gets. "Blankets" is the longest song on the album, and rightfully so in this case. It might not make it onto your favorite playlist, but it follows up on some earlier themes and is probably the most worthwhile song in the latter half of the album. "Nautilus" is fittingly unique, but not particularly strong. I think it would have been better suited for a B-side or special edition release.

I feel weird saying this, but to me, the album seems to end at "In 20 Minutes the Light Will Change." It's neither slow nor heavy, but it sounds very dark and gives the impression of very strongly driving the album to a close. Then, "Tristessa" comes out of nowhere. A bonus track? If it is, then the following two songs are bonus tracks as well. What's going on here? "Tristessa" is one of those songs that screams "bonus track," not because it's too weak for the core of the album, but because it's so blatantly out of character. After this awkward sequence, we are treated to a real closing as strong as the opening (though not quite as good a song as "They Have Eyes") in "We Have Burn."

I don't mean to complain. I only nitpick this album because there is so much right with it and some better organization and planning could have made it excellent as a complete album. I think this is especially important for Leiahdorus because they have never been a band for the iPod generation; that is, their songs are not good for playlists and they will not appeal to everyone. The real appeal of the band is to listen a full Leiahdorus album. Perhaps for that, Parallel Universe was their best. But Ode to the Builders just has so much that the previous albums lacked: far greater accessibility (in a few songs), a more mature and better-blended style, cohesive recurring themes, and dare I say more than one song that I could argue is their best to date.

Yes, if you're new to Leiahdorus, this is where I suggest you begin, and I think you will be glad you did. If you are a longtime fan, you may be bothered by the flow of the album as I was, but still, within it you will find more than a little bit of their best work. They took their time and they made it count. It's not perfect, but it's essentially what I had hoped for during the long wait.

Caius's rating: 3.5 stars

The Lightning Thief review

A high school loser goes to the Olympics! Wait, make that... Olympus! When he finds out he is the son of the Greek god Poseidon, Percy Jackson goes to Hogwarts--I mean, Half-Blood Camp (I shit you not)--to learn to become a powerful wizard--I mean, Greek hero.

Alright, alright. I'm actually not one of those people who will gripe about the story's likenesses to Harry Potter, because I think they're really just characteristics of this particular subgenre of young adult fantasy, rather than actual Potter rip-offs. But seriously, The Lightning Thief (film) feels very much like Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film). I think we have Mr. Columbus to thank for that.

So here's the rest of the story in a nutshell, for real this time. Once he's at Half-Blood Camp, Percy meets a hot chick (an adjective which I would debate with Mr. Jackson in this case) and discovers that his black friend is really his guardian satyr. Once he is informed that Zeus's treasured lightning bolt has been stolen and Hades has stolen his mom, he decides to embark on an epic quest across the USA to get to Hades and rescue his mom, instead of taking the advice of Pierce Brosnan. The hot chick and black friend catch him in the act and decide to tag along. Along the way he meets several mythical figures and escapes several challenges.

So far so good, right? The problem isn't so much in the concept; it's in the plot progression. Too many transitions leave plotholes that we're supposed to just go with. Why on Earth do they still care about the time limit to get the lightning bolt when they've abandoned that quest entirely to go to Hades instead? Oh, I guess they must be connected somehow, even though the characters don't know it. Hmmmmm. Some of these plotholes can be filled with a sentence or two, but, well, they should have been. Others are just meant to go over our heads. Worse than that are some of the character motivations that have a nasty tendency to be conveniently explained in a brief bit of dialogue, a trend that has become sadly typical of young adult fantasy movie adaptations. "Why did you just do that?" "Oh, for this reason." "...Oh, okay. (moves along)." And this happens again and again. It's very weak storytelling if you ask me, and I'm guessing it stems from a poor attempt to cram as many of the events of the book into the film as possible while fitting it into 2 hours. But I know from seeing good adaptations that it can be done much better than this.

The acting is quite a mixed bag. Percy himself is very good in the beginning at acting like a teenager, but he's much more awkward once he steps into his hero shoes. His black friend, the satyr, provides comic relief well, but seems like a much more generic character when he shows Percy around in the beginning. And the hot chick is just awful. Truly, truly terrible. I don't know where they found her, but wow, I think Miley Cyrus would have played that role better. The adult actors hold their roles much more firmly than the kids. Boromir--er, Sean Bean--is a great Zeus, and Uma Thurman really shines as Medusa, although I fear that even her scene would have benefited from some better writing.

Really, The Lightning Thief has some good things going for it: some good humor, an interesting concept, decent acting, and even some decent cinematography and special effects in the climactic ending. All these good moments are brought down by a very poor script, lackluster directing, and some very awkward transitions and explanations. I'll say this one had potential, and there is certainly some fun to be had for kids and adults, but overall this could have and should have been a much better film.

Caius's rating: 2.5 stars

2012 Review

2012 is 2009's big disaster movie. And what a disaster it is indeed! We thought with a budget as big as this movie had, they could have made something more than simple genre film. We were wrong. How long do we have before this disaster hits theaters? (long pause) It's already here...

If you feel like you've heard that one before, you're going to hear it again.Can you think of another disaster movie cliche? You'll hear that again too, I guarantee it. 2012 clings like glue to the established disaster formula, even more so than other recent films in the genre like The Day After Tomorrow. Pick any part of this film and you've seen it before. The lack of any originality whatsoever is my biggest gripe with 2012.

But wait, there's more. It seems like they had to try really hard to make this movie long so it just might feel epic. The first half or more of the movie involves people running away from CRUMBLING BUILDINGS! And then, they have to run away from a TIDAL WAVE!!! And then, they have to run away from FIREBALLS!!!!!! (I shit you not). It all just goes on and on; there's no real increase in tension. In fact, there's really not much excitement at all through most of it. The best scene in the whole thing is the one shown in the trailers when they run away from cracks in the highway as they drive through it in a limo. Their survival with everything falling apart inches away from the car is nothing short of impossible.

While we're on the subject of impossible, the film actually doesn't even do a very good job of explaining why the world is ending. It gives you a brief rundown of how it might work according to a crazy man in the woods, and that's about it. From there it just goes. It does mention the Mayans and the lining up of the planets and such, but none of that seems to matter; it actually has to do with unusual solar activity, which seems to imply that there was no reason that this had to happen in 2012 as it was predicted.

The film makes an attempt at being very emotional with everything. 'Oh no, my friend was just hit by a tidal wave (sob).' I have to give it credit for trying because a lot of disaster movies make it seems like the main characters don't really care that much, but with the way it's presented in this one, it just feels way overdone. No sale.

I can tell by the box office numbers that it's going to do me no good to discourage people from seeing 2012. To its credit, the special effects are good, and if you tend to enjoy watching things fall apart on the big screen, then you will get your money's worth from 2012. Just don't expect anything more than that. This is a genre flick if ever there was one, and it's bad. Really bad.

Caius's rating: 1 star