It feels pointless at moments, like I'm on display. But then again - so is everyone else. We're even on that score.
On select moments within the daily humdrum, when I free my mind enough to think, I feel a vague sensation of trying to unravel this big riddle. Except it's too difficult. Requires too much sustained concentration. So like a Rubik's Cube wasted on the impatient, I toss the riddle aside, figuring I'll chip away at it some other time. But each time, I'm starting from scratch.
Tonight I'm alone.
The weather is perfect. Light breeze. Cool, not cold. It's a special experience. stretches of noise, cars whizzing by, punctuated by moments of silence. Relief. It's not them that I'm here for, though.
Random moments in people's lives: young, religious girl helping her grandmother down the street; hip Jerusalemites, with their 3/4 pants and sandals, congregating outside some bar - discussing their big travels, big career plans and, of course, the big soccer match; a solitary young woman in colorful shuk garb shows up on the horizon, grows larger and larger as she comes near, then past me and into the car; the obvious first-date couple, "uhhhh"-ing away at each other through their best attempts at a natural grin; the smokers, communicating by proximity rather than language, like a pack of cats on a lazy afternoon; the mad biker, going for a speed record whilst pulling off a wheelie. But by and large, each and every person is in a box and outside of it. Ultimately indescribable.
Then comes someone I know.
"Hi."
"Hey."
"So, you like sitting on this bench?"
"Oh, no. I'm waiting for someone.."
Showing posts with label night life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label night life. Show all posts
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Why I Support the Anti-Smoking Law with Every Fiber of My Being
The new, tougher smoking law that has gone into effect recently is completely justified. Not everyone seems to agree on this, though*.
The naysayers generally fall into two groups:
a) wishful thinkers, i.e. those that see the problem with exposing non-smokers to smoke in public, but oppose the law on the grounds of harm to personal property rights, and
b) idiots, i.e. those that see no problem with the situation as it's been.
Let me start with the second group. These inconsiderate bozos will conveniently play blind to the reality of Israeli nightlife over the past 24 years (since the first anti-smoking laws were enacted in 1983), in which many if not most smokers didn't give a rat's ass about breaking the law, inconveniencing others to satisfy their own habit, and arguing back or giving a nasty look whenever politely asked to put out their cigarette. They describe a self-serving, imaginary "status quo" like it ever had any significant support from the three quarters of overage Israelis who don't smoke**. Their royal highnesses will sometimes be so kind as to claim that if it's so bothersome to non-smokers, they can "just ask" - like a non-smoker should ever have to.
To them, I say this:
I feel the need to point this out because these people often talk like the whole point of a nightspot is to smoke in it. It isn't. Smokers enjoy smoking in those places, but everyone else doesn't. I'm sure some people would enjoy starting a sing-along, masturbating or loudly proselytizing the Word Of The Lord in there, but everyone else wouldn't. The only reason nightspots have become so synonymous with smoking is because it's been grudgingly put up with. And spare me the relativist BS: the "lots of people do it so it's ok" argument has been used to defend everything from the Israeli's chronic overdraft to cannibalism and slavery. It's not.
They will usually try to nitpick with that old red herring: "how is smoking different from drinking, or driving a car? They can also harm your health! And what about overeating? Why don't you just outlaw food?"
Well done.(clap, clap.) Good for you. (clap clap.)
Before I answer why cigarettes are different, can I just point out that I can't stand these lines of argument? I mean, is that question supposed to conversely insinuate that by justifying the legality of food they've somehow proved it's OK to smoke in someone's face?? it makes me want to answer back with convenient, ridiculously over-simplistic analogies of my own: "Adolf Hitler was bad for a lot of people's health - I suppose you would've supported him!"
No, but seriously, their retort is that substances and acts such as drinking, driving, any kind of noise etc. can be harmful to others, yet are still allowed. What makes smoking different to the other oft-mentioned "legal drugs", is that smoking is simultaneously harmful to one's own health, physically addictive and an inconvenience to others even when used in moderation (the three strikes.) A single cigarette will bother most non-smokers, and quite likely harm their health - though I'll submit that the research findings have been contested.
So let me clarify: I am by no means a supporter of government intervention, especially if it can be circumvented by other means. The decision to curtail an individual freedom is a serious, potentially catastrophic one, not to be taken lightly. I oppose limiting a person's right to something that may harm himself or others if abused - e.g. drinking, driving, owning a knife etc. - because that would hurt the rights of responsible users. However, when something has all the detractions I've listed above, that's when I consider legally curtailing its use in public, if social norm doesn't take care of it first. It hasn't.
The bottom line is, this twisted situation has remained: a three-quarter (and growing) non-smoking majority, with virtually no options for attending a nightspot without being exposed to cigarette smoke. It's what's known in economics as a market failure - when the combined interests, preferences and tastes of people operating with free reign do not manage to bring about their desired result. The reasons for the failure in this case would be too long to write out here, but it does go to show the tremendous power of the norm, of habit, of what is.
The "classic" solution to market failures is government intervention. While this has been hotly contested by the more conservative end of the economic spectrum - also worthy of its own post - I feel this is largely as a reaction to a long tradition of uncalled-for or overused government intervention, rather than an actual preference of market failures over alternatives in every case. As I've written earlier, I'm no fan of interventionism per se, but the facts on the ground remain: given effective property rights, the non-smoker does not face a realistic non-smoking option. I think the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
There's a lot of semantics involved. If one paints this as a major Property Rights Issue, then it sounds like something that should be defended to the grave; but we're not talking about curtailing anyone's freedom of expression, freedom of employment (which has been curtailed under the present system) or any other basic freedom. We're not forbidding smoking - that would be a far more fundamental issue. We're only restricting smoking in areas where lots of non-smokers normally gather. Smokers can smoke at home or outside all they want.*** I don't see how the alternatives, in which non-smokers had no viable options, or even the "segregated nightspots" theory (which would hurt freedom of employment as well as drive a social wedge in Israeli nightlife), are so much better.
One day - when smokers become an even smaller segment of society, when the common social norm is that they never light up unless they know they won't be bothering anyone, and when plenty of non-smoking venues exist - this law won't be necessary. Right now, I think it absolutely is.
* for the sake of this post, I'm referring specifically to nightspots.
** not that it's a popularity contest. Even if there were a majority of smokers, it still wouldn't entitle them to inconvenience and possibly harm the health of others with no good purpose.
*** I've been asked what the distinction is between the home and a nightspot - since they're both private property, and people can choose whether to come to them. While they are both technically private, for this particular issue the answer is in the latter part of the question - people couldn't (until now) really choose not to come because they had no realistic non-smoking nightspot options.
a) wishful thinkers, i.e. those that see the problem with exposing non-smokers to smoke in public, but oppose the law on the grounds of harm to personal property rights, and
b) idiots, i.e. those that see no problem with the situation as it's been.
Let me start with the second group. These inconsiderate bozos will conveniently play blind to the reality of Israeli nightlife over the past 24 years (since the first anti-smoking laws were enacted in 1983), in which many if not most smokers didn't give a rat's ass about breaking the law, inconveniencing others to satisfy their own habit, and arguing back or giving a nasty look whenever politely asked to put out their cigarette. They describe a self-serving, imaginary "status quo" like it ever had any significant support from the three quarters of overage Israelis who don't smoke**. Their royal highnesses will sometimes be so kind as to claim that if it's so bothersome to non-smokers, they can "just ask" - like a non-smoker should ever have to.
To them, I say this:
When god created humans, and with them the innate desire to socialize in a dimly-lit space after a hard day's work, he/she didn't create said space full of cigarette smoke.
I feel the need to point this out because these people often talk like the whole point of a nightspot is to smoke in it. It isn't. Smokers enjoy smoking in those places, but everyone else doesn't. I'm sure some people would enjoy starting a sing-along, masturbating or loudly proselytizing the Word Of The Lord in there, but everyone else wouldn't. The only reason nightspots have become so synonymous with smoking is because it's been grudgingly put up with. And spare me the relativist BS: the "lots of people do it so it's ok" argument has been used to defend everything from the Israeli's chronic overdraft to cannibalism and slavery. It's not.
They will usually try to nitpick with that old red herring: "how is smoking different from drinking, or driving a car? They can also harm your health! And what about overeating? Why don't you just outlaw food?"
Well done.
Before I answer why cigarettes are different, can I just point out that I can't stand these lines of argument?
No, but seriously, their retort is that substances and acts such as drinking, driving, any kind of noise etc. can be harmful to others, yet are still allowed. What makes smoking different to the other oft-mentioned "legal drugs", is that smoking is simultaneously harmful to one's own health, physically addictive and an inconvenience to others even when used in moderation (the three strikes.) A single cigarette will bother most non-smokers, and quite likely harm their health - though I'll submit that the research findings have been contested.
So let me clarify: I am by no means a supporter of government intervention, especially if it can be circumvented by other means. The decision to curtail an individual freedom is a serious, potentially catastrophic one, not to be taken lightly. I oppose limiting a person's right to something that may harm himself or others if abused - e.g. drinking, driving, owning a knife etc. - because that would hurt the rights of responsible users. However, when something has all the detractions I've listed above, that's when I consider legally curtailing its use in public, if social norm doesn't take care of it first. It hasn't.
Which brings me to the first group. They seem to have garnered a fair bit of support. On the face of it, there's a certain neat logic to it: allow nightspot owners to choose for themselves what sort of business they'll have. Non-smokers will be able to choose to go to non-smoking venues, while smokers could still enjoy themselves in smoking establishments.
The problem? It doesn't work.
The fact is, the freedom for every owner to decide whether his business will allow smoking or not has existed effectively for, well, ever. In the past 24 years, it may have been technically illegal to have a smoking nightspot, but this law has never really been enforced; and on the flip side, every nightspot owner has always enjoyed the legal freedom to ban smoking on his property if he wished. But what happened? All the bars ended up being smoking bars. There have been only a handful of attempts to open non-smoking bars in Israel.
The problem? It doesn't work.
The fact is, the freedom for every owner to decide whether his business will allow smoking or not has existed effectively for, well, ever. In the past 24 years, it may have been technically illegal to have a smoking nightspot, but this law has never really been enforced; and on the flip side, every nightspot owner has always enjoyed the legal freedom to ban smoking on his property if he wished. But what happened? All the bars ended up being smoking bars. There have been only a handful of attempts to open non-smoking bars in Israel.
The bottom line is, this twisted situation has remained: a three-quarter (and growing) non-smoking majority, with virtually no options for attending a nightspot without being exposed to cigarette smoke. It's what's known in economics as a market failure - when the combined interests, preferences and tastes of people operating with free reign do not manage to bring about their desired result. The reasons for the failure in this case would be too long to write out here, but it does go to show the tremendous power of the norm, of habit, of what is.
The "classic" solution to market failures is government intervention. While this has been hotly contested by the more conservative end of the economic spectrum - also worthy of its own post - I feel this is largely as a reaction to a long tradition of uncalled-for or overused government intervention, rather than an actual preference of market failures over alternatives in every case. As I've written earlier, I'm no fan of interventionism per se, but the facts on the ground remain: given effective property rights, the non-smoker does not face a realistic non-smoking option. I think the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
There's a lot of semantics involved. If one paints this as a major Property Rights Issue, then it sounds like something that should be defended to the grave; but we're not talking about curtailing anyone's freedom of expression, freedom of employment (which has been curtailed under the present system) or any other basic freedom. We're not forbidding smoking - that would be a far more fundamental issue. We're only restricting smoking in areas where lots of non-smokers normally gather. Smokers can smoke at home or outside all they want.*** I don't see how the alternatives, in which non-smokers had no viable options, or even the "segregated nightspots" theory (which would hurt freedom of employment as well as drive a social wedge in Israeli nightlife), are so much better.
One day - when smokers become an even smaller segment of society, when the common social norm is that they never light up unless they know they won't be bothering anyone, and when plenty of non-smoking venues exist - this law won't be necessary. Right now, I think it absolutely is.
* for the sake of this post, I'm referring specifically to nightspots.
*** I've been asked what the distinction is between the home and a nightspot - since they're both private property, and people can choose whether to come to them. While they are both technically private, for this particular issue the answer is in the latter part of the question - people couldn't (until now) really choose not to come because they had no realistic non-smoking nightspot options.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The TGF (Two-Girl Fortress) Has Fallen!
In a previous post, I introduced the TGF - Two Girl Fortress - as the impregnable wall, the unsolvable riddle, the nemesis of Nice Guys the world over. No longer. Today, I've officially cracked it. Hurray, the king is dead!
Quick recap: Often occurring at a night spot, a TGF is a situation where 1) two (or more) ladies are engaged in conversation, 2) you're interested in one of them, and 3) there's no possibility of eye contact with her (e.g. she has her back to you), and thus no hope of a reciprocated "go ahead" smile.
Why not just talk to her, you ask? Hold on, there's more.. As I'd written in said post:
Quick recap: Often occurring at a night spot, a TGF is a situation where 1) two (or more) ladies are engaged in conversation, 2) you're interested in one of them, and 3) there's no possibility of eye contact with her (e.g. she has her back to you), and thus no hope of a reciprocated "go ahead" smile.
Why not just talk to her, you ask? Hold on, there's more.. As I'd written in said post:
"Here's my problem: I need a ruse. I cannot, under any circumstances, walk up to two ladies in the middle of a conversation and say "hi", without having some reasonable excuse for doing it. I'm towering above them as they sit, I'm cutting into their lively conversation, and I'm still basically nobody to them. I don't care if she or both are single and looking; I don't care how many times you'll tell me it's "normal" and "expected" and "flattering"; I don't care if you've uncovered her secret diary expressly saying she wishes someone who looked just like me would walk right up to her in the middle of a conversation and start talking - I will never feel like anything other than an intrusive stranger butting in. My price for being civilized."
So, 4) I'm a polite non-actor who doesn't enjoy butting into total strangers' lively conversation with a ludicrously transparent agenda. The situation's stressful enough as it is! There you have it: the TGF. One tough nut to crack.
Fast forward to this evening. Ran into a classic TGF: I was at a bar with a couple friends, sitting at a table, there were two girls ahead of me, and the one I was interested in was with her back to me. My brain goes into action again, furiously trying to figure out how to solve this old doozy. Clutching at straws, I thought I'd try a technique I had once fantasized about doing, a trick that requires a great deal of confidence and good humor to work. Tonight, for a change, I had it - encountering this dilemma yet again, after so many other instances, allowed me to see its comic side, and ease up just enough to try. I won't say what the trick is, because it's kind of embarrassing. For the sake of the story, I'll just say that it allows me to stay seated and yet try to get her attention.
So I gave it a try. Just as I started, however, she got up to go to the bathroom, rendering my attempts futile. This felt like a sign from the heavens: some higher force, the same one who's enjoyed taunting me for years with beautiful, attached ladies and TGF's, was laughing at my attempts to storm the old fortress. Predictably, this took most of the wind out of it for me. My army had thundered towards the walls, morale high, with all their bravery and might, only to storm an empty fortress. Needless to say, they now saw their commander as kind of a jackass...
Normally I would stop here. There's only a short window of opportunity where you're still hopeful and self-confident enough to try these things; after that, you slide into self-awareness and thus lose any chance of being charming enough for a total stranger to accommodate you. But I couldn't give up yet. Something about still, after all these years, being unable to come up with a reasonable solution to this frustrating quandary told me that. She came back to the table.
I summoned what little remaining ease and confidence I had, and tried again. But this time, there was simply no response. Try as I did to raise my voice, she couldn't seem to hear me. If she did, she certainly wasn't showing it.. She must've assumed I'm a loud busybody - surely an endearing quality! My army had attacked the correct fortress all right, but this time it had been roundly defeated. Bruised and battered, the surviving few came back to report it's time to call it quits. With my friends trying to console me - poor guys, they probably wondered why I was taking this so personally; if only they knew the demons I was facing! - I pretty much did.
Then her friend got up to go to the bathroom.
By this point, I'd become quite sick and tired of this feeling of helplessness. "aw, fuck it!". With no hesitation, and certainly no game-plan, I got up and sat opposite her. I was smiling. This was going to be honest. "Look," I said, "I've been trying all night to figure out a way to hit on you. Now, I know this is kind of sudden and out of the blue, but I'll be sitting right over there. If you think you might be interested, feel free to let me know on your way out or something. No pressure, and sorry if I've made you feel uncomfortable."
I got up and went back to my seat, exhausted but vindicated. I'd done it! Thing is, though, about halfway through my little speech, she gave me that look of "that's sweet but I have a boyfriend; you can stop now. Please?" I wasn't too optimistic, but at least I'd tried, and that was something.
I'm back at the table. No response from her. She doesn't turn around, her girlfriend facing me doesn't give any communicative, playful looks at me, nothing. I wait for a while longer and then announce to the guys we can go - I get the message.
As I step out - another rejection for the record books - the unthinkable happens. She gets up and practically chases after me outside the bar. "Is it still relevant?" she asks. So cute.. "Of course it is!" Apparently, I'd completely misinterpreted her reaction.
A short conversation later, I had her number. :)
Sunday, February 25, 2007
"Don't be Crazy"
"Why not go after her? what have you got to lose? What have you got to lose?"
I had been feeling a sort of angst, an impatience, all evening. Some friends invited me to a jazz show near my house, but when I showed up I couldn't stand being there. Normally I'm fine with some live jazz, but at that moment it irritated me to no end. It seemed so soft, just some polite, mood-setting background music; and here I was, ready to scream. I couldn't take it.
I ended up going with a friend to a bar on Gaza street. Both of us were a little dispirited. As we left - another uneventful night, another day of eternal bachelorhood - a young lady standing outside the bar caught his fancy. She parted ways with her friends and began walking up the street. I told my friend he should try - what has he got to lose? You can't afford to dwell on these situations, so I quickly patted him on the shoulder, wished him goodbye/good luck, and turned up Radak street for the walk home.
He never did go up to her, but the thought stayed with me. What have you got to lose?
I felt a longing. I was terribly missing my former self. My throat welled up. I was thinking in a way I hadn't thought like in - what was it? 6, 7 years?
For those few moments, I went straight back to the sort of total romanticism I had only experienced in my early twenties. All the advanced calculus of making first contact gave way to this naivete. What have I got to lose? My god, why had I stopped ever thinking that? I'm all of 28, but it felt like I was staring at an old photograph, realizing how much I've aged.
In my close group we called it a "kamikaze mission": a situation where there's not going to be any way to make proper social contact before stating your intentions. You just have to go up, say something short, hope for the best and ask. The classic one is when she's just passed you on the street. Something deep in your gut says it would be a crying shame to let her go. But let me be clear here - this was never mere physical attraction. There would be something about her, something beyond, a je ne sais quoi, that would induce me to do something I would certainly never contemplate doing normally.
It was all coming back to me - "what have I got to lose?" I used to think like that all the time. Going up to a young lady and straightforwardly, almost confessionally, asking her for her number. So she says no - so you gave her a compliment. What's wrong with that? You gave a total stranger a bit of an ego boost for the evening. It was a win-win situation. That was part of the romantics of it - I used to feel happy all the time at the prospect of making someone else happy.
It was such a youthful way of thinking, from a time when even someone out on the street could juuust be "the one". Nothing else mattered at that moment. why not? Take the plunge. No hang-ups, no long analysis of what sort of person she is, I just wanted to go up and try. Not to belittle the genuineness of my interest for a second, but yes - it was very exciting. I would smile at the prospect of doing it, not that there wasn't a good bit of dread as well...
Started walking down Osishkin.
These feelings used to arise at night for me. I would go out on the porch of my parents house, stare at the stars, and something deep inside would strike me. I can't describe it - simultaneous excitement and despair at the untapped potential I thought I had. I would sit at home, and think I have to write something. It's 1:30AM - let's write a book! Let's take my guitar and go sit somewhere and play it. Something's bound to happen! There was a spark of pure romanticism that would bubble to the surface, even in calculating, rational ol' me. god, I haven't had that in years.. what happened? when did all that change? It seems so naive now.
It was around when I hit Bezalel street that it started to fade. I began to see the folly of it, like big, gaping holes. "Don't be crazy. You'd just intimdate her. A total stranger walking up to her like that, in the early hours of the morning? Why on earth would she agree to it? Look, with all the good will in the world, she simply doesn't know you from Adam; you're just putting her on the spot. What do you want her to say? Have some dignity - be an adult. You can't just pounce like that out of the blue. It's a very stressful situation to put her in, and she's much better off playing it safe. You know what? If she says yes, she's probably crazy."
By the time I turned onto my street, it was gone. You grow up, I guess. You mature. People out on the street can't be "the one", right? These things take time, you build them.
I used to be crazy.
I had been feeling a sort of angst, an impatience, all evening. Some friends invited me to a jazz show near my house, but when I showed up I couldn't stand being there. Normally I'm fine with some live jazz, but at that moment it irritated me to no end. It seemed so soft, just some polite, mood-setting background music; and here I was, ready to scream. I couldn't take it.
I ended up going with a friend to a bar on Gaza street. Both of us were a little dispirited. As we left - another uneventful night, another day of eternal bachelorhood - a young lady standing outside the bar caught his fancy. She parted ways with her friends and began walking up the street. I told my friend he should try - what has he got to lose? You can't afford to dwell on these situations, so I quickly patted him on the shoulder, wished him goodbye/good luck, and turned up Radak street for the walk home.
He never did go up to her, but the thought stayed with me. What have you got to lose?
I felt a longing. I was terribly missing my former self. My throat welled up. I was thinking in a way I hadn't thought like in - what was it? 6, 7 years?
For those few moments, I went straight back to the sort of total romanticism I had only experienced in my early twenties. All the advanced calculus of making first contact gave way to this naivete. What have I got to lose? My god, why had I stopped ever thinking that? I'm all of 28, but it felt like I was staring at an old photograph, realizing how much I've aged.
In my close group we called it a "kamikaze mission": a situation where there's not going to be any way to make proper social contact before stating your intentions. You just have to go up, say something short, hope for the best and ask. The classic one is when she's just passed you on the street. Something deep in your gut says it would be a crying shame to let her go. But let me be clear here - this was never mere physical attraction. There would be something about her, something beyond, a je ne sais quoi, that would induce me to do something I would certainly never contemplate doing normally.
It was all coming back to me - "what have I got to lose?" I used to think like that all the time. Going up to a young lady and straightforwardly, almost confessionally, asking her for her number. So she says no - so you gave her a compliment. What's wrong with that? You gave a total stranger a bit of an ego boost for the evening. It was a win-win situation. That was part of the romantics of it - I used to feel happy all the time at the prospect of making someone else happy.
It was such a youthful way of thinking, from a time when even someone out on the street could juuust be "the one". Nothing else mattered at that moment. why not? Take the plunge. No hang-ups, no long analysis of what sort of person she is, I just wanted to go up and try. Not to belittle the genuineness of my interest for a second, but yes - it was very exciting. I would smile at the prospect of doing it, not that there wasn't a good bit of dread as well...
Started walking down Osishkin.
These feelings used to arise at night for me. I would go out on the porch of my parents house, stare at the stars, and something deep inside would strike me. I can't describe it - simultaneous excitement and despair at the untapped potential I thought I had. I would sit at home, and think I have to write something. It's 1:30AM - let's write a book! Let's take my guitar and go sit somewhere and play it. Something's bound to happen! There was a spark of pure romanticism that would bubble to the surface, even in calculating, rational ol' me. god, I haven't had that in years.. what happened? when did all that change? It seems so naive now.
It was around when I hit Bezalel street that it started to fade. I began to see the folly of it, like big, gaping holes. "Don't be crazy. You'd just intimdate her. A total stranger walking up to her like that, in the early hours of the morning? Why on earth would she agree to it? Look, with all the good will in the world, she simply doesn't know you from Adam; you're just putting her on the spot. What do you want her to say? Have some dignity - be an adult. You can't just pounce like that out of the blue. It's a very stressful situation to put her in, and she's much better off playing it safe. You know what? If she says yes, she's probably crazy."
By the time I turned onto my street, it was gone. You grow up, I guess. You mature. People out on the street can't be "the one", right? These things take time, you build them.
I used to be crazy.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Monotonix: The Band That'll Put a Smile on Your Face
..even as you're pinned to the floor - by their singer.
Had this whole post on agnosticism and faith ready, but forget that.. Every once in a while I see a band I'm happy just to know exists. Quick background: I'm a huge music fan - first and foremost, though not reserved to, rock music. listen to tons of it, Play in two bands.. Big on all things with an independent bent and strong emotion, but that's for a later post.
Just got back from catching the Monotonix at the Sira bar in Jerusalem. They're a Tel-Aviv based trio consisting only of a drummer, a guitarist and singer. No second guitar, no bass. To compensate, Yonatan, the guitarist, plays a detuned guitar through a bass amp, and deftly goes back and forth between bass-like passages and guitar. On top of that, the drummer bashes his minimal kit - no toms, just a snare, bass drum and a few cymbals - standing up. From these two instruments, they manage to coax as full a sound as anyone could hope for. The economy of it all is inspiring.
But the real center of attention is Ami, the short, mustachioed, 45(!!)-year-old singer; though that's probably the most peripheral part of his presence on stage. Just last night:
He routinely walked deep into the audience and hugged or kissed people, especially the ones in the back who weren't paying attention.
Halfway through the second song, I offered him my beer and he immediately proceeded to pour it on his head.
All this may read like mere shock tactics, like he was trying too hard to "entertain" - but he wasn't. What doesn't come across is the basic human warmth he spread in the crowd, even when he seemed over-the-top. The feelings this man managed to coax, along with the ear-piercing but ever melodic rhythm section.. you just had to be there. He wants to get everyone involved. Israeli audiences tend to be quite calm - they'll cheer for a few second after a song and then fall deathly quiet; Ami's out there just trying to wake everyone up, without ever seeming like he's struggling against them or somehow dissatisfied with them.
The single greatest thing about this band is their utter lack of pretension. None of Ami's antics seemed at all forced; he was just having fun. No one at a Monotonix show could even try to maintain some air of false poise or distanced "cool" with this madman crashing into them at every opportunity. Everyone was smiling. You had to. Even if you hated them, you were smiling.
By the end of the set, I felt like the random batch of people that made up the audience had been joined, if only for a moment, by this singular experience. It's a feeling I rarely get these days at shows, but I did tonight. Long live Monotonix!
Had this whole post on agnosticism and faith ready, but forget that.. Every once in a while I see a band I'm happy just to know exists. Quick background: I'm a huge music fan - first and foremost, though not reserved to, rock music. listen to tons of it, Play in two bands.. Big on all things with an independent bent and strong emotion, but that's for a later post.
Just got back from catching the Monotonix at the Sira bar in Jerusalem. They're a Tel-Aviv based trio consisting only of a drummer, a guitarist and singer. No second guitar, no bass. To compensate, Yonatan, the guitarist, plays a detuned guitar through a bass amp, and deftly goes back and forth between bass-like passages and guitar. On top of that, the drummer bashes his minimal kit - no toms, just a snare, bass drum and a few cymbals - standing up. From these two instruments, they manage to coax as full a sound as anyone could hope for. The economy of it all is inspiring.
But the real center of attention is Ami, the short, mustachioed, 45(!!)-year-old singer; though that's probably the most peripheral part of his presence on stage. Just last night:
He routinely walked deep into the audience and hugged or kissed people, especially the ones in the back who weren't paying attention.
Halfway through the second song, I offered him my beer and he immediately proceeded to pour it on his head.
He duck-taped himself to someone and thus "forced" him to dance with him for an entire song, then "hung" off him with the tape, singing like it's all in a day's work...
He spent the rest of the show covered in tape, with his own left shoe dangling by the shoelaces from the mike cable.
he set the cymbals on fire...
he set the cymbals on fire...
he jokingly (or not) yelled at the barman for doing "business" in the middle of "his show".
he jumped right onto this haredi guy and clung to him for a good minute straight - while singing.
He would walk out the door... walk into the audience and drag someone to the stage, then wrestle him to the floor (I was one such victim. He didn't get much resistance, though - I was paralyzed by laughter!)
he climbed to the top of the bathroom stall, a good three meters off the floor, and sang from there.
..and for the brilliant end of the show, he took the cymbals away from the drummer one by one, and handed them to people in the audience, along with sticks for them to bash away in their own time.. Ran, the drummer, was left with only his snare, which he set up on top of the bar counter, and carried right on playing it standing there. All the while, Ami was on top of the bar with him, waving two lightbulbs like a 'luded-out hippie.All this may read like mere shock tactics, like he was trying too hard to "entertain" - but he wasn't. What doesn't come across is the basic human warmth he spread in the crowd, even when he seemed over-the-top. The feelings this man managed to coax, along with the ear-piercing but ever melodic rhythm section.. you just had to be there. He wants to get everyone involved. Israeli audiences tend to be quite calm - they'll cheer for a few second after a song and then fall deathly quiet; Ami's out there just trying to wake everyone up, without ever seeming like he's struggling against them or somehow dissatisfied with them.
The single greatest thing about this band is their utter lack of pretension. None of Ami's antics seemed at all forced; he was just having fun. No one at a Monotonix show could even try to maintain some air of false poise or distanced "cool" with this madman crashing into them at every opportunity. Everyone was smiling. You had to. Even if you hated them, you were smiling.
By the end of the set, I felt like the random batch of people that made up the audience had been joined, if only for a moment, by this singular experience. It's a feeling I rarely get these days at shows, but I did tonight. Long live Monotonix!
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
The Ultimate Open Challenge: the Two-Girl Fortress
OK, I know I said I'd post more about myself, but it's a fast-paced world out there. If something springs up urgently, well, damned if I don't write about it! Fear not (I'm sure you do..), the first "about me" post is under construction, awaiting my next stretch of concentration... Anyway:
I'm going to give you a puzzle to try to solve, and I welcome any and all attempts to crack it, ok?
here's the situation: I go out to a bar/restaurant-type place. As I enter, I notice a girl who catches my fancy. Great! now I'm psyched.. I sit at a table, with my good (male) friend. she's having a lively chat with her girlfriend. they're sitting two tables down from us, her friend facing me, "my" girl with her back to me. and now the question: what on earth do I do?
This is a TGF, Two-Girl Fortress*. It's impenetrable to me. And it exists virtually everywhere I go. Now, there are occasional circumstances that make it possible - difficult, but possible. At a bar, for instance, I might be able to sit next to her and start a conversation. Even table situations can sometimes work, if I can initiate eye-contact and see what the response is. If she sends enough of a "go ahead" smile, I might actually work myself up to doing something about it. But in this case - with no physical proximity or eye-contact - I'm dead in the water. I'd call it a UTGF (Ultimate TGF) if it weren't too long and cumbersome.
Here's my problem: I need a ruse. I cannot, under any circumstances, walk up to two girls in the middle of a conversation and say "hi", without having some reasonable excuse for doing it. I'm towering above them as they sit, I'm cutting into their lively conversation, and I'm still basically nobody to them. I don't care if she or both are single and looking; I don't care how many times you'll tell me it's "normal" and "expected" and "flattering"; I don't care if you've uncovered her secret diary expressly saying she wishes someone who looked just like me would walk up to her right in the middle of a conversation and start talking - I will never feel like anything other than an intrusive stranger butting in. My price for being civilized.
A priceless piece of advice I've heard is to ask to join the table. If you suggest that, you obviously haven't been reading. join the table? Are you kidding me?? Look, I'm aware this might not be nearly as unacceptable as it feels like to me, but I need a minimal level of truthfulness with myself, because I'm extremely transparent - I'm no actor. If what I'm feeling is that I'm an intrusive stranger, I can't try to exude this charming, nice guy who's confidently asking to join the table like it's perfectly natural for me. It ain't. Doing that is like trying to stab myself in the hand with a fork - just can't do it!
I've gotten all sorts of well-intended advice on this subject, but it's all regretfully immaterial to the basic problem: how do i interrupt two strangers' conversation with little or no acting ability? Solve this one, and you've solved one of (my) life's greatest mysteries!
* I know we've said we'll use "lady", but it really doesn't work in this context.
I'm going to give you a puzzle to try to solve, and I welcome any and all attempts to crack it, ok?
here's the situation: I go out to a bar/restaurant-type place. As I enter, I notice a girl who catches my fancy. Great! now I'm psyched.. I sit at a table, with my good (male) friend. she's having a lively chat with her girlfriend. they're sitting two tables down from us, her friend facing me, "my" girl with her back to me. and now the question: what on earth do I do?
This is a TGF, Two-Girl Fortress*. It's impenetrable to me. And it exists virtually everywhere I go. Now, there are occasional circumstances that make it possible - difficult, but possible. At a bar, for instance, I might be able to sit next to her and start a conversation. Even table situations can sometimes work, if I can initiate eye-contact and see what the response is. If she sends enough of a "go ahead" smile, I might actually work myself up to doing something about it. But in this case - with no physical proximity or eye-contact - I'm dead in the water. I'd call it a UTGF (Ultimate TGF) if it weren't too long and cumbersome.
Here's my problem: I need a ruse. I cannot, under any circumstances, walk up to two girls in the middle of a conversation and say "hi", without having some reasonable excuse for doing it. I'm towering above them as they sit, I'm cutting into their lively conversation, and I'm still basically nobody to them. I don't care if she or both are single and looking; I don't care how many times you'll tell me it's "normal" and "expected" and "flattering"; I don't care if you've uncovered her secret diary expressly saying she wishes someone who looked just like me would walk up to her right in the middle of a conversation and start talking - I will never feel like anything other than an intrusive stranger butting in. My price for being civilized.
A priceless piece of advice I've heard is to ask to join the table. If you suggest that, you obviously haven't been reading. join the table? Are you kidding me?? Look, I'm aware this might not be nearly as unacceptable as it feels like to me, but I need a minimal level of truthfulness with myself, because I'm extremely transparent - I'm no actor. If what I'm feeling is that I'm an intrusive stranger, I can't try to exude this charming, nice guy who's confidently asking to join the table like it's perfectly natural for me. It ain't. Doing that is like trying to stab myself in the hand with a fork - just can't do it!
I've gotten all sorts of well-intended advice on this subject, but it's all regretfully immaterial to the basic problem: how do i interrupt two strangers' conversation with little or no acting ability? Solve this one, and you've solved one of (my) life's greatest mysteries!
* I know we've said we'll use "lady", but it really doesn't work in this context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)