Darn uni, it sucks out all your creativity, and makes you unable to post witty stuff on your blog. When I come home I'm too tired but on the weekend I'm frantically finishing homework. And to think of all the days in the holidays where I did absolutely nothing. What a waste! Actually, not really, because doing nothing is in itself something, as it's something of a luxury that I don't often get during the working year.

I have to be the epitome of temporary obsession, I think. When I start listening to music, I can't get enough, and swallow multiple CDs a day. It's frightening, really, how I seem to need a music fix during those periods. Yet at the same time I have dry periods like this, where I can go months without listening to a single thing. Abstain, obsess, rinse and repeat. Let it be known that at this point in time, the last thing I've heard is Neil Young's On The Beach. Why? Well, it's a fact that may prove interesting a few years down the track, ya know?

Amusing, but sadly as good as it'll get for me.

I hate having a cold, it feels like you can't do anything. And to top it off, I've got to spend 8 hours at uni tomorrow. Woohoo.

An interesting site about outsourcing is this one, where the forums appear to harbour many resentful Amercians. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily - it is after all one of the perspectives on the whole matter. The issue of outsourcing is one I'm not able to produce a final judgement on. Being an NRI (non-resident Indian), I seem to be stuck in the middle somewhere. There have already been heated debates from an ecomonic point of view, citing globalization as being one of the reasons why outsourcing is A Good Thing, only to be fiercely countered by arguments from the other side. I can't claim to understand either argument very well, quite frankly. My knowledge of economics is truly rudimentary, and I don't really understand "how the world works", as it were. But ignorace has never stopped me before, now has it?

It's always interesting to see the perspective of the workers on both ends. The Americans are forced to watch their jobs, one by one, be usurped by people on the other end of the world, whereas the Indians are grateful to be getting large salaries and a steady job. Objectivity in this case is particularly hard, I think. For instance, Indian top-makers (or some other toy-makers, I can't remember) were recently being crippled by cheaper competition from China. The knee-jerk response I felt was of course "That's not fair!". Why is that? Perhaps it's because I've seen how these people live, and how their small income is the only thing that allows them and their families to stay alive (a bit of a hyperbole). I guess that makes me automatically assume that what's happening is "wrong". However, my ignorance of what's going on with the Chinese toy-makers means that I can't really judge the situation at all.

I think the above was basically an exercise in the obvious.

I decided to indulge myself in a bit nostalgia while I still can (before uni starts, that is), and so tried running my old version of Quest For Glory 4. Unfortunately, of course, it couldn't run out of the box on Windows XP, even with compatibility mode set up for Windows 98, because of sound issues. However, I found that there is a neat way to make old DOS games run properly, and it's called VDMSound. It emulates the sound drivers that DOS games are used to, thereby making them think that you're running the games under true DOS. Nifty! I got QFG4 running with no problems in a matter of minutes, full music and voice (and my sound card is an Audigy, by the way). Of course, I did also download Sierra's driver update from here, which gives you an AUDBLAST.DRV file which I used for the voice (audio) driver. But otherwise, the whole thing was a piece of cake. Now I've just got to try some other DOS games that were horrendous to try to get to run, such as Ultima 8, and if they work..well, even if I never fully play the games again, at least I can rest assured that it is possible to have my nostalgic memories relived.

A related program is DOSBox, which emulates DOS mode (or at least that's what it looks like it does - I'm not sure about the specifics of how it implements its behaviour) and lets you run your games from its command line. Now, this did let me run QFG, but it gave me problems with sound - of course, QFG4 is apparently notorious for being one of the buggiest games Sierra made, and also one of the hardest to get running on a modern computer. But it's definitely worth checking out, because it seems to support a lot of old DOS games.

Of course, I am reminded of Paul Simon's Kodachrome:

"If you took all the girls I knew when I was single
And brought them all together for one night
I know they'd never match my sweet imagination
Everything looks worse in black and white"

I've found that my olde DOS games sometimes don't live up to the memories I had of them. Whether that somehow diminishes these memories, I'm not sure, but it is certainly something to keep in mind. Speaking of which, it's interesting which memories that are formed now will soon become tomorrow's fond nostalgia. Perhaps the marathon Morrowind and Baldur's Gate gaming hours? Heh, I am now reminded (what can I say, I'm in that kinda mood) of a Calvin & Hobbes strip, which ends something like

Hobbes: "You're going to wish when you're older that you had fonder memories than this tripe (watching television)"
Calvin: (Watching TV) "Quite probably"
Hobbes: (Sits down and watches TV)

Wonderful, simply wonderful.

It's somewhat sad to think that in a couple of days, when uni starts again, I have to get back to the routine of early morning starts (relatively, of course - nowadays I'm used to waking up at pretty much any time I want) and actually doing something constructive during the day (of course, that is debatable, what with the multitude of pointless lectures and boring tutorials I had last year). There is a slight element of excitement which I always feel when I start something afresh. You might say that I look forward to even the most painful thing after taking a break from it, even if it this looking forward is overshadowed by a feeling of ominous doom. I guess the fact that my timetable is decent is a small victory, at the very least meaning that I have no more 12 hour at-uni days which were followed by wake-up-at-6 days.

As always, it's nice to reflect on how it feels like only yesterday that it was the start of the new year, and so on. Unfortunately, that is a lie, because it doesn't feel like yesterday, it feels more like a couple of months ago, which just so happens to be perfectly accurate. It is strange however that my birthday was at the start of the holidays, because I can't remember a darn thing about it now. I only have the vaguest of memories of playing Baldur's Gate for most of the day at the start of the holidays, which was of course a nice way to waste time, not to mention a sure-fire way to sound cool in everyday conversations ("Yeah, I had a pretty rough night, you know, what with the dragons killing my level 19 paladin. Luckily for me I had a priest who cast Quivering Palm with +2 roll"). I don't think I'm quite that nerdy, but I may well be soon enough.

A constant feature of any holiday seems to be a never-ending sense of regret and a distinct feeling of non-accomplishment and failure. For instance, I never did get around to finishing my webpage, which was something I was saving for the 3 months of freedom. Not to mention that I didn't learn Python, again something I had intendend on doing a whole year ago. Let's not even talk about finishing reading Code Complete, The C++ programming language, ... Speaking of reading, I read virtually nothing these holidays, save I think The Great Gatsby, and maybe Coming Up For Air. Sigh, a truly wasted time it was. I seem to save things for the long holidays, but when they come, I truly squander the opportunity. Even though I'm aware of that, I never seem to be able to avoid the trap the next time around. At least now I have this blog to highlight all my failures, right? Perhaps that will be some small incentive.

In other news, chatting with Alice is a lot more interesting than talking to real people. Most of the time.

The truth is out there..unfortunately, a lot of the times, the truth isn't particularly interesting. For once, I would like to see a paranormal story which can't be refuted. Then again, that would probably scare the daylights out of me, so let's forget that.

There's a free Enegram test I just took, according to which I'm a 5w6 or 9w1, but the test says it can't determine my personality :/ The story of my life. Not really, but that's my favourite phrase of the moment.

For no real reason, let me list the albums in Rolling Stone's list that I haven't listened to, in the top 40 (I could do the top 100, but that would take too long, because I haven't heard as many "great" albums as I think, apparently):

#2. Pet Sounds - Wow, a glaring omission from any collection, huh? I guess the reason I haven't got this yet is because I've listened to quite a few of the songs off a greatest hits collection, and so in some ways it seems a bit wasteful to buy the whole album. Of course, it also has to do with the fact that I haven't been able to find it!

#6. What's Going On - Like most people, I have heard What's Going On the song, but I've never really been pushed in the direction of Marvin Gaye's music. R&B isn't really my thing anyway. But let's see.

#11. Elvis Presley - The Sun Sessions - Ahh I don't know, I appreciate the impact that the king has had on rock and roll, but I don't see myself listening to his music. I suppose that makes me ignorant and snobby, but there you go.

#12. Kind Of Blue - Probably too intellectual for me, because I just don't get jazz. Maybe when I'm older!

#15. Are You Experienced? - A surprising exclusion, no? No real reason for not listening to this, but I think I will listen to it soon. After all, it is Hendrix we're talking about. Even if he may be a tad overrated, I think it's probably everyone's duty to hear him at some point in time.

#17. Nevermind - From what I've read, the most overrated album of the '90s. I'm skeptical of it being among the 20 greatest albums ever, but who knows? Teen Spirit isn't too bad, but it's not exactly a masterpiece (of course, I'm sure there's more to the album that one song) I might give this a listen sometime, if I'm feeling particularly bored.

#18. Born To Run - Supposedly Springsteen's best according to some, but according to others it's quite pitiful. The tricky thing is, most reviewers from the US will probably praise it to the high heavens as the best representation of American music or something, so it's important to try and get an objective review on the album. I'll try to get into Bruce's catalogue a bit more before I consider buying this album.

#21. The Great Twenty Eight - See #11

#23. Innervisions - Same sort of deal as #6.

#24. Live At The Apollo, October 24, 1962 - Soul just ain't my thing, ya know?

#27. King Of The Delta Blues Singers - Same sort of deal as #24.

#30. Blue - Mmm I really ought to listen to Joni Mitchell soon, although from what I've read, this isn't really her best album, it's just the most famous of her catalogue, her Plastic Ono Band as it were. One more on the "to listen to" list I guess.

#33. The Ramones - High expectations for this one, but I only hope I don't get disappointed like I did with London Calling.

#34. Music From Big Pink - I've heard Stage Fright, and I'd give it maybe 3-3.5 stars, so while I'm not really looking out for this, I guess I ought to listen to it just for the importance it hadd.

#36. Tapestry - See #23.

#38. Muddy Waters The Anthology: 1947 - 1972 - Guess?

#40. Forever Changes - Probably gruesomely overrated, but I'm going to give it a shot soon anyway.

Wow, 17 out of 40, that's almost 50%! I've got some serious listening to do before I'm considered a true rock afficionado, eh? (only half-serious)

I'm a bit late to the game with Rolling Stone's Top 500 Albums Of All Time List, it would seem. There appears to be lots of debate already about why the list is bad, why Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band is rot, why Rolling Stone is irrelevant, and all that jazz. But anyway, here goes nothing. I probably sound like an old bogey stuck in the past. Of course, that's hardly possible, given that I wasn't born to see either the 60s or 70s. And, right up front, the disclaimer - I'm not as well versed with current music as I am with music of days gone by.

One of the chief complaints is that the list is heavily skewed towards albums from the '60s and the '70s. It's easy to see that the top 100 is occupied by virtually only stuff from this era, so it seems like there's a valid issue here. But here's the problem - was the music from the era really better than music of this day and age? The answer, of course, is "Define 'better'". As George Starostin put it, it is possible to be objective when reviewing music (or art, for that matter), provided we define a set of criteria that are subjectively chosen. I like that argument, I really do. So what does that mean? Essentially, what most of us eventually agree upon - that "top 100" lists are, at the end of the day, pointless. You may rank Trout Mask Replica #1 because you value how Beefheart didn't give a damn about music conventions, and because you see sanity among the madness. Yet I can just as well rank any of the early Beatles albums #1 because I value pop-hooks and melodies. Different criteria, different results.

Of course, the issue of "which criteria is best" is a bit facetious, because you can't really say that any one intelligently chosen set is better than the other. When I say "intelligently chosen", I don't mean a set that conforms to my own views - it's a set of criteria which are logical to judge music by. If I were to make my top 100 list based on how many instruments were used on the album, it wouldn't be a particularly intelligent criteria. Sure, I could do it, and have a whale of a time. For that matter, I could judge albums based on how long the opening track is. It's just that such lists couldn't be taken seriously at all. But by combining different criteria, and considering each of them, I suppose one can try to appease everyone in some way. Having said that then, it should follow that one can't really make a definite pronouncement on the list without first trying to see what the people who created it look for in an album. Historical importance? Complexity? Listenability? Rather, it would seem that the big issue is over what these criteria were. It seems that this argument is a bit futile, because if you want to define a 'great' album, you're defining it using your own interpretation of greatness.

But on to the matter of music of the past vs. music of the present. How is it better (i.e. by what criteria is it better)? Let me count the ways. The biggest problem with rock today is that there isn't really too much originality. It all seems to be a rehash of the stuff that the "rock legends" did 30 odd years ago. But the problem here is that there's only so much that you can accomplish with rock music - and sadly, it would appear that the limit is reached. It isn't likely that there will be anything revolutionary like there was back in the day. Sure, you have new genres popping up everyday, like nu-metal and God knows what else, but it doesn't seem like they will take us anywhere substantially new. The well of ideas has run dry. Rock, as I see it, is dead, in that it can't radically redefine itself anymore, at least not in a way that is interesting (but that's subjective, so I mean of course interesting to me).

Related to that is I suppose influence. There are a lot of excellent genre-defining albums, but then again you have albums that actually transcend such details and influence the whole of rock music. Case in point, Dylan's early works, which showed that rock music needn't have banal lyrics to "work", and that artists could actually express themselves in a way other than their instruments. Sgt. Pepper showed once and for all that rock music could be taken seriously. Of course, there are positive and negative influences - Zeppelin inadvertantly inspired hordes of uninspired heavy metal bands, although they themselves weren't a bad band. I don't think music of the last few years has seen any major influential albums that affect the whole of rock music - usually they're only genre-influencing efforts (which are still commendable).

But surely just originality and influence isn't reason enough for Sgt. Pepper and friends to be "better" than ? I don't know, it's hard to pin down why I think it is the case. Albums like that, they were wildly original and creative and, dare I say it, they make you believe that the artist is a genius. Albums like that were, probably for a multitude of reason, interesting. Not that any album from the 60s is better than a current album, of course - I'm restricting the discussion to nice/good/very good albums of the 60s. It just doesn't seem like you're going to be able to get another concept album like Days Of Future Passed, a confessional Plastic Ono Band, an insane Velvet Underground. Of course, I mean that I don't think we will get any of these things in a way that interests me. What's missing? I don't know. A lot of things, I guess, but I just don't know. All things considered, your tastes are as good as mine - it's just the little issue of past vs. present that I often worry about, because there's only so much music that was made in those times; and soon, it will run out for me.

I guess I just wasn't made for these times.