6 Economic Thoughts

One of the Chicago Mayoral Election's greatest phantom issues is entering the race: "which candidate will solve the impending economic crisis?" This question sounds innocent enough, for the City of Chicago does face daunting economic issues, specifically with increasing pension payments due. Undoubtedly, Mayor Rahm Emanuel will attempt to paint himself as the fiscally sound candidate, given his background and privileged status as incumbent. On the other hand, even from innocent curiosity, many will pressure Commissioner Jesus Garcia into providing his own economic plan (which is apparently coming this week).

These economic plans will only distract from the stakes of the Mayoral election, for several reasons:

(1) Given the decreasing bond ratings in the City Government (and CPS), anyone can lead this government into economic crisis. There is no guarantee that any plan whatsoever will lead this government out of an impending bond-rating crisis. Furthermore, for his investment background and apparent superiority regarding fiscal matters, Mayor Emanuel has already overseen these recent bond downgrades. So, if the current Mayor cannot currently solve the budget crisis, what would lead anyone to believe that another term will do the trick? (Are bond issues so tricky that they take more than four years to solve?)

When someone asks "What is 'Chuy''s plan for the budget crisis?," say, "Why did Mayor Emanuel's policies lead to two recent bond downgrades?" There is obviously no guarantee that Commissioner Garcia will solve this issue, but one needs to remember that Mayor Emanuel already hasn't solved it (and, in fact, has arguably made things worse).

(2) Mayor Emanuel has already borrowed, extensively, to cover basic municipal bills. CPS already borrowed 2016 Property Tax money to balance its current budget. Any potential heat placed on Commissioner Garcia's plan, or potential fiscal shortcomings, ought to be redirected to the fact that if the challenger takes ahold of Chicago, he will be replacing a Mayor that could not actually balance the budget.

I understand that "Garcia can't possibly do worse than Emanuel" is not really an argument, since Commissioner Garcia obviously could fail to solve these issues if he were to be elected Mayor. However, in re-electing Mayor Emanuel, one ought to ask, "if the Mayor could not solve these issues in his previous four years, why will he solve them in the next four years?"

(3) It stands to reason that property taxes will rise regardless of who takes office. Sorry. It's not an effective argument for or against either candidate to suggest that property taxes may or may not rise, when Alderpersons working on the budget already foresee a tax hike.

(So, you can ask, "If I'm living in a city where my property taxes will increase, whose lifestyle policies do I prefer? Which candidate offers the best controls for citizens?")

(4) There are allegedly Aldermen arguing that Commissioner Garcia will be unable to solve fiscal issues while abolishing Red Light Cameras, and implementing anything resembling a "reform" government on Tax Increment Financing (TIF) policies (or Property Tax issues). This may be true. However, if one assumes that Chicago's economic issues will be difficult to solve regardless of raising revenue from red-light cameras, issues like red-light cameras become valuable lifestyle issues: if the City of Chicago's budget fails and the bond rating continues to fall, do you want to live in a City that continues to reach into your own pocket, or do you prefer to find alternative solutions?

(5) The same can be said for an Elected School Board. The honest truth is that if Mayor Emanuel's government has not been able to solve major fiscal issues, taking a chance on a Mayor that may establish an Elected School Board gives the citizens another potential weapon against the power of their government (if that seems futile, look at Mayor Emanuel remove red light cameras already; if the prospect of a new Mayor is scaring Mayor Emanuel into concessionary tactics, imagine what an angry-and-informed electorate can accomplish with the school board).

(6) Finally, in the context of these issues, pushing TIF reform is arguably the most important of Mayoral issues. First and foremost, as the Chicago Reader suggested after the February election, if Commissioner Garcia can push the TIF issue in debates, he can get Mayor Emanuel to reveal the reality of a reported $1.7 billion TIF surplus. If such a surplus exists, citizens ought to vote for the candidate that is most likely to return those syphoned property tax dollars to taxpayers or municipal bodies (like the parks, schools, etc.).

Furthermore, as the TIF program continually draws property tax money away from schools and parks (and other municipal services), citizens of Chicago ought to repeat the economic doomsday question: if the next mayor cannot solve budget issues, do you want to live in a city that nevertheless takes property tax dollars and applies them to private, sometimes-corporate interests and projects? Is it acceptable to us, as citizens, to see the Mayor of Chicago continuing a TIF program that draws property taxes away from cash strapped citizens in order to grow an economy that is not creating enough revenue to produce a sound budget?

(When you think about comments like that of Senator Mark Kirk, who hinted that Chicago would collapse into "Detroit" if Commissioner Garcia is elected Mayor, think about Mayor Emanuel's use of TIF programs to "grow" an economy that is teetering on the edge of collapse in spite of those apparent revenue spurs to "growth").

These six difficult issues should help voters understand why supporting Commissioner Garcia, and opposing Mayor Emanuel, is a crucial election decision. It is not enough to hint that "Chuy" offers pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic reforms that he can't deliver on. I think we all understand that he won't deliver on everything. But the very potential for civic improvement must be on our minds: Mayor Emanuel's failed budgets, borrowing practices, bond failures, school failures, property tax failures, red-light camera failures, and TIF failures ought to put into perspective why voting him out is crucial for the health of the city. Commissioner Garcia may not solve every problem, but at the very least, the City of Chicago will benefit from the potential absence of the TIF program, the absence of red-light cameras, and an Elected School Board should everything else go south. This is our chance to make sure that should things turn sour, we retain as many controls as possible over our government.

Please direct corrections or comments to @SpectiveWax on Twitter, or spectiveaudio [at] gmail [dot] com.

Chicago Election 2015

Chicago's recent election is one of the most exciting I have ever participated in as a voter, and one of the most important I have ever participated in as a voter. Given the difficult divides in our city, as well as the "Strong-Mayor" system and Mayor Rahm Emanuel's controversial and divisive policy approach, I cannot recall an election with higher stakes in my personal voting life.

I believe that there are several fascinating aspects of the run-off that will determine whether challenger Jesus "Chuy" Garcia pulls together the neighborhoods to win, or whether Mayor Emanuel will escape to govern for a second term. Frankly, there are countless dynamics to analyze:

1. Will 19 confirmed or apparent Aldermanic Run-Offs energize a lax voting body? 
2. To what extent will Chicagoans turn out in early April? 
3. How vocally will the Progressive Caucus support emerging aldermanic candidates that appear in run-offs? 
4. Where will the votes from Bob Fioretti, Willie Wilson, and William Walls go? 
5. Will the three defeated challengers endorse Commissioner Garcia? 
6. Will Commissioner Garcia stick with his recent "Crime Candidate" advertisements, or will he find a new issue to attempt to win-over undecided or moderate voters? 

These types of points could go on-and-on. Frankly, there are multiple sides to these issues. For example, Commissioner Garcia could decide to focus on any number of issues that Mayor Emanuel opposes, and attack the race in that matter (given the widespread electorate support for an Elected School Board, Garcia could use this platform as a starting point). He could also challenge Emanuel on education, Red-Light Cameras, the use of TIF surplus, TIF reforms, etc. It remains to be seen whether Commissioner Garcia will benefit from pushing Mayor Emanuel on one specific issue, or whether he will try a multi-faceted approach. While progressives might like to see their challenger tackle Mayor Emanuel with myriad issues and approaches, Garcia could potentially benefit from sticking to one issue (like red light cameras or an elected school board) that appeals to voters across racial, ethnic, and neighborhood lines. If a candidate such as Fioretti, Wilson, or Walls endorses Garcia, Garcia could benefit from using one specific meeting point with those candidates. 

Voters have many motivations, so I decided to collect three charts, using DNAInfo.com and NBC.com election data. In some places, the data appears to have conflicting reports, so I add "?" next to those numbers. These charts aim to collect a few key points of voter motivation:

1. How was voter turnout in my ward?
2. Will my ward have an Aldermanic Run-Off?
3. How did Garcia and Emanuel fare in my ward?
4. Which major challengers succeeded in my ward?
5. Is there a progressive caucus member in my ward? 
6. How many % points are Garcia and Emanuel fighting over?

Chart One: The Battlegrounds

There are arguably 18 wards that will feature solid battlegrounds: I selected these wards because:

• They feature some of Commissioner Garcia's best performances. 
• They feature some solid performances by other challengers. 
• Most importantly, they feature relatively low turnout, even in this election. 

(18) BATTLEGROUND WARDS	Garcia	Emanuel	Turnout	Alderman Run-Off	Remaining %	Note
22	70.8	20.8	27.5	No	8.4	Progressive Caucus Alderman (Munoz)
12	67.1	25.5	27.4	No	7.4
35	57.3	33.5	28.4	No	9.2	Solid voting for Fioretti
25	56.4	33.1	30.4	No	10.5
26	53.9	34.4	26.8	No	11.7
15	52.9	29.8	24.5	YES	17.3	Solid voting for Wilson
14	52.7	37.3	33.1	No	11.0
31	51.3	40.5	27.1	YES	8.2	Potential Emanuel rally with Suarez push
30	49.6	39	22.6	No	11.4
33	49.6	39.5	35.5	YES	10.8	Meegan challenges with 35%
1	49.0	39.4	28.8	No	11.5
10	47.5	37.7	35.6	YES	14.8	Solid voting for Fioretti
36	45.2	39.2	28.2	YES	15.8
49	44.1	43.6	34.7	No	12.3
23	43.6	39.8	42.5	No	17.6	Heavy voting for Fioretti
40	42.3?	47.1?	33.8	No	10.6	Heavy voting for Fioretti?
32	41.6	47.2	27.8	No	11.3	Progressive Caucus Alderman (Waguespack)
19	36.1	41.7	51.5	No	22.2	Heavy voting for Fioretti

The Run-Offs in 10, 15, 31, and 33 could be particularly important, given (a) the support for other challengers, (b) the potential for progressive developments in the City Council, and (c) the need for improved voter turnout (specifically in 15 and 31).

One of the most difficult aspects that Mayor Emanuel will face is heading into wards where Commissioner Garcia performed well, and attempting to sway voters that did not hit the polls. It remains to be seen if those voters that stayed home were already Emanuel supporters ("Oh, I won't vote, there's no way he loses"), or if those voters will be encouraged by Garcia's performance ("Oh, he really is a serious candidate, I'll vote for him"). 

Chart Two: Wilson Wards

I think it's easy for a lot of people to joke about Willie Wilson, given some of the reported controversies during the election, and his relatively apolitical demeanor during speeches and debates. Frankly, I was fascinated when Wilson prayed for closing statements, or prayed during his concession speech, and generally appeared to place his political race in the wider context of religiosity and thankfulness. Many of us are cynical, or want to play hard politics, so a Candidate like Wilson may seem less-than-serious, but Wilson's performance in 18 wards was very serious.

I collected these wards, given that they are (a) wards in which (either) Garcia and (or) Emanuel did not perform particularly well, and (b) wards in which Wilson thrived.

(18) WILSON	Garcia	Emanuel	Wilson	Turnout	Alderman Run-Off
24	23.4	36.4	30.3	26.7	YES
37	21.2	41.2	28.2	26.3	YES
17	24	40	26.6	28.4	No
16	26.1	39	26.6	22.3	Progressive Alderman Running (Foulkes)
28	22.2	39.8	25.9	22.9	No
34	20.7	45.3	24.9	32.4	No
21	22.3	42.2	24.5	33.4	YES
20	26.5	40.3	24.4	25.6	YES
9	22.1	43.2	24.0	32.1	No
6	23	42.5	23.5	30.7	Progressive Alderman (Sawyer)
8	24.1	43.3	22	35.5	No
29	25.1	42	21.9	30.3	YES
7	24.6	43.6	21.2	31.9	YES
27	21.7	48	18.9	26.5	No
18	32.8	38.7	16.6	38.2	YES
3	21.2	48.9	16.4	30.2	No
4	28.5	44.5	14.1	37.7	No
5	33.7	43.9	12.9	39.0	Progressive Alderman (Hairston)

These wards arguably have the most interesting combination of turnout issues / potential turnout increases, aldermanic runoffs, and, of course, endorsement potential for Wilson himself. Should Wilson choose to endorse one of the Mayoral Candidates, and the turnout stabilizes or improves, these wards will shape the results of the election.

Of course, there is the added bonus of watching Mayor Emanuel head into neighborhoods that his policies have not favored during his term. Will reconciliation be enough for the Mayor, or are residents and voters of these wards finished with the Mayor?

Chart Three: Emanuel Land
The biggest problem for Mayor Emanuel appears when one looks at 14 of his strongest wards: the Mayor (unsurprisingly) performed great along the lake, but those wards already featured some of the best voter turnout performances of the election. Granted, a handful of aldermanic run-offs remain in these wards, and given the relative affluence of some of these wards, one might argue that these wards are more likely to improve voter turnout than other areas of the city. However, some voters in these wards did support Fioretti and Wilson to some degree, which leads one to ask whether the voters that stayed home were progressives who did not feel motivated to vote (given Emanuel's strength along the lake); given Mayor Emanuel's performance, it's difficult to imagine that staunch supporters of the mayor stayed home. So, in the worst case scenario, even if Commissioner Garcia does not improve his performance in these wards, he could still potentially pick up votes from Fioretti or Wilson supporters (if those people return to the polls).

(14) Emanuel Country	Garcia	Emanuel	Turnout	Alderman Run-Off	Note
42	16.7	73.2	27.3	No	Moderate Fioretti support
43	18.4	71.9	33.3	No
2	23	64.9	30.7	YES	Moderate Fioretti support
44	27.2	64.2	29.7	No	Heavy voting for Fioretti
46	31.6	57.4	36	YES	Equal Wilson and Fioretti
50	32.5	55.1	31.8	No
48	37.6	52.2	37.2	No	Equal Fioretti and Wilson support
47	40.1	51.2	36.9	No	Moderate Fioretti support
13	37.3	51.1	45	No	Solid Fioretti voting
11	32.5	48.9	34.9	YES	Heavy voting for Fioretti
39	37.4	48.2	38.1	No
38	33.2?	48?	37.7	No	Solid voting for Fioretti
45	35.1	47.9	41.8	YES	Progressive Alderman Running (Arena)
41	31.1	47.7	41.5	YES

Basically, we have a real fight for Mayor in Chicago. One thing is certain: if you have any grievances with the City government, if you want the City government to reflect a specific political outlook, you have the chance to impact the government. Remember, the City of Chicago is ultimately OUR government. These politicians work for us, and if we believe that the city can improve, we need to vote as such.

Please direct comments or corrections to spectiveaudio [at] gmail [dot] com or @spectivewax (on Twtter)

Rectal Hygienics and Institutional Violence

EDIT (8:49 PM, March 31, 2019): I have never deleted a piece of writing that I have published. This is the first. I want to explain why; there are numerous editorials, analyses, and features I have lying around the Internet in which I no longer fully agree with what I've written. But I believe that part of this is a substantive part of writing: if you write on the web for a decade, your opinion is going to change over time (hopefully), you're going to learn from some things, learn new things, reconsider old facts, etc.

This isn't one of those cases.

I've come to understand both feminism and power in different ways, and institutional power in different ways. I no longer think that my original post has a valid point in any of these areas. It doesn't matter that I believe that my heart was in the right place at the time, or that I believe that I had anything valid to say about "feminism" at the time. What I did not fully grasp about the fact that it was not my place to speak about feminism was also that it was not my place to write criticism under any sort of guise of feminism, regardless of whether I believe I was saying anything worthwhile or not.

So I am deleting the original post. But I am leaving the subscripts that I left, because even that day that I wrote this post, I learned an awful lot and had a lot of good engagements about this post.

To this day I believe this is the most read post that I have ever written, outside of some Baseball things. But I don't think that's good enough reason to keep it: I now understand feminism, intersectional critiques of power and gender, and gender itself in completely different ways than when I originally wrote this post, so I am pulling it.

EDIT (8:55 AM, February 20, 2015): After sleeping on it, I thought I'd add another quick note, and reposition the edits I added yesterday (see the end of the original post). As I did with yesterday's update, I have not touched the original words. 

I want to add a clarification of why I think it's acceptable to frame this type of debate in terms of "feminism." I understand that it is unacceptable to present male violence as a form of feminism, and I agree with that. However, what I did not emphasize well enough in the original post is that I understand Rectal Hygienics to be delivering an institutional critique, which I first note in the third paragraph. The crucial element of my review is to place the spoken word / found-sound snippets from the LP at a level equal to the lyrics themselves; I believe if we take the band seriously, there is a sense that they are delivering these lyrics from the point of view of institutional-professional male violence. Perhaps it would have been better to call this a "critique of power" rather than "feminism," but I do think it's important to push the boundaries of institutional critiques from a feminist perspective; if we are truly to achieve feminist emancipation, one needs to ask whether that can occur within a professional-monopoly capitalist setting. 

I am skeptical that this can occur, which is why I think Ultimate Purity deserves to be taken seriously. I certainly understand that there are people that will not find this LP palatable, I certainly understand that people will feel repulsed, and I do understand that it's a violent LP. I think all of those are reasonable points of view, but I still think those criticisms / feelings can be waged without calling the band "misogynist." I believe a misogynist would expressly endorse male violence, and I find it hard to read Ultimate Purity through that lens. 

(I have changed the title to "Rectal Hygienics and Institutional Violence." The original post was "Rectal Hygienics as Feminism"). 

I think we need to ask this of feminism: can feminist aims be accomplished within capitalist / professional frameworks? I remain skeptical of this, and I believe that we can read feminism as an extremely effective weapon to also move away from professional-monopoly capitalism. 

If you don't think Rectal Hygienics are interesting or worth this consideration, I think that's fine; but, for those that listen to the album, struggle with the album, and love the album, I think it is worth asking these questions. This debate must be important, however, as this original blog post received more than 1300 views -- I find that stunning for an album released to a small scene, pressed in 500 quantities, and especially given that some have freely admitted they will not buy or listen to the album anyway. 

***

***

EDIT (2:08 PM Central, February 19, 2015): I have been discussing this issue with my friends for most of the day, and I have also seen critiques on Twitter that I take very seriously. First and foremost, I want to apologize for coming off as combative, and also for insinuating that "Feminism" is whatever I want to make of it. I certainly do not believe that I can decide what feminism is -- I believe, as I have learned, that feminism is the emancipation of women from gender roles (stated simply), and that there are many other complex historical issues and variations associated with that project. 

So, I certainly do not want to make it seem like I believe Rectal Hygienics are feminist just because I say so, or even that they're feminist at all (many people certainly disagree with that notion, and I think that is an entirely valid point). I want to add that, perhaps, a clarification might be that the Ultimate Purity album is valuable as a part of the larger goal of feminism to expose and combat violence. There are points in this article where this simply does not come across as clearly as possible; but insofar as feminists study rape narratives and deal with the realities of gender violence (in many, many different ways), among other projects, I think there are many ways that feminism can address violence. 

(Personally, I should also add that I believe that institutional factors impact human behavior as much as, maybe more than, individual motives. I especially believe this to be the case in our current culture, economy, etc. I believe that there are crucial institutional barriers that need to be addressed in order to achieve feminist aims. This does not mean that I do not think individual actions are important -- they are. But, I believe that critiques of power, gender, sex, etc., can be written from individual and institutional viewpoints. This is something I did not explain very well in this article).

It also bears stating that in no way do I condone gender violence, whatsoever. I abhor the very idea. In this case, I think that the challenging lyrics on the latest Rectal Hygienics record deserves some treatment beyond the basic sense of misogyny; I think there is a lot more going on there, and frankly, I'm also quite sick and conflicted about my own love of the album. I think Ultimate Purity is a brilliant noise album, but I have to personally come to grips with what the lyrics mean, or what the implications are.

I want to apologize to anyone I've offended with this, and I also want to reiterate that I do not mean this as some kind of "appropriation" of feminism. For that reason, I've changed the title from "Rectal Hygienics as Feminism." I also apologize if I've belittled or attacked Jes Skolnik. I certainly did not mean this to be a personal attack, but it is my own personal exploration that I've been concerned about since I first heard the album. 

Thank you for sharing this and reading it. More people have viewed this than actual copies of the LP were pressed. So, I'm certain that this is a challenging issue a lot of people are thinking about. 

With these edits, I did not change any of the original text. I want to admit that I was not as clear as I intended, and what I meant as a potentially empowering critique was not received as such, and that I was wrong in ways I did not intend.

Experiencing Vinyl #3: "Best of The Rest" 2014

For the last few years, I focused my interests and purchases on contemporary musicians. The simple fact is, there are plenty of musicians making good music, and it's fun to go to the record store and look through the New Arrivals for the most interesting or crushing or heartbreaking or emancipatory music. 2014 was completely different. This year, those older records hollered louder, and they outlined many trends or counterpoints to what I purchased from contemporary artists (which was admittedly much less organized -- and perhaps way more fun than any previous year of music collecting).

I owe plenty of thanks to Elastic in Chicago, and especially the Elastro Series, for providing spaces that expanded my musical interests and experiences in 2013 and 2014. The venue is reliably experimental, and its move for 2015 brings thrilling possibility (please have another clothing and record swap!). With Elastro, I experienced experimental music live more frequently than in previous years, which in part must explain why I've listened to so much old music. At the Victim of Time record fair, I landed a $0.50 copy of The Very Best of the Everly Brothers (WB), which hit as hard as the exceptional Gross Pointe tape; from scuzzy motorcycle rock to commercial rockabilly, I found shockingly straightforward and even heavy songs. This was the perfect backbone, or grounding, for my free-jazz and improvisational leanings. 

The Everly Brothers reminded me that I had been looking for a vinyl version of "Mystery Train," which has been in the Greil Marcus-dominated sphere of my subconscious ever since high school, I suppose. But that's another therapy session. Anyway, For LP Fans Only (RCA), sealed and reissued from the 1970s, popped up in a record bin one fine day, and I completed my heavy rockabilly hits from 2014. What I particularly like about The Everly Brothers and Elvis Presley is that their music shines through so much skepticism about cultural appropriation or cynical reappraisals of the golden past. Certainly, these artists straddled boundaries of popular music during a tumultuous time, but their ravaged sense of delivering the song at all costs, and remaining faithful to the brief, sudden encounter is the strongest element of their music. 

Sudden and brief trends peppered my purchases throughout the year, including a full-on dive into the Homostupids. I think I almost landed everything they released, which is way less offensive than the name suggests, and quite focused (for as completely wrecked as it is). I don't know why I didn't spend the entire year we lived in Cleveland listening to this, it certainly would have accompanied the broken glass bike lanes with measured harmony (The Edge, P.Trash pictured here). The Homostupids rush fit perfectly next to my recent Obnox spree, which I gladly indulged in once Thee Oh Sees announced their (false) hiatus. We are blessed as music fans to jump from a band like the "classic" Oh Sees to Obnox releasing multiple discs in a year, and Obnox is only getting better as he moves forward (Canibible Ohio, Slovenly / Black Gladiator pictured here). 

I hated Stress Apes when I first heard them years, and years, and years ago. Well, not hate. But while speaking with my friends about CAVE and everything related, my young ears were afraid to admit that I didn't quite understand Stress Ape. Luckily for me, Bad Drugs, Cacaw, and Rotted Tooth Recordings in general completely opened my ears to bleak, unconscionable noise, and so I luckily stumbled upon a copy of Mergers (Hardscrabble Amateurs). I only wish my noise ears were hardened earlier, for I now face a desire to buy every single Hardscrabble title after the fact. Oh, what we've lived through that we miss -- hell, I probably missed 500 great tapes this year alone. 

Thanks to my family members, I received a batch of delicious tapes and LPs for my birthday, two of which included The Doors Live at The Hollywood Bowl (Elektra) and The Rolling Stones Some Girls (self?). Some Girls is such a ridiculously cringeworthy album at certain points, if only because I find it very hard to believe that Mick was short on "jam" by the mid-1970s. Like the debauchery of the 1970s Stones in general, the notes of redemption shine brighter than the trash, and if you don't get your fix from absurd MXR phasing, Mick's sad-sack country howls on side-B will drive you nuts. I almost fall over every time I hear Mick talk about driving through 40 consecutive red lights once he learns that Jesus is always with him (Hahahahahahahaha!). The Doors shocked me, if only because of their harsh moments that punctuate light, enjoyable jazz-psych moves. I'm really quite indifferent to Morrison, but the honest truth is that it's quite difficult not to "wake up" at the noise that introduces "Light My Fire."

Trouble In Mind is a label that requires serious back-purchasing into my collection. I finally started this year, as Doug Tuttle's exploitation-psych-wheelhouse pop burned into my brain for the first half of the year (I seriously think that album burned into my brain. I recommended it to a friend who turned me on to Back from the Grave, who promptly reported, "Yep, Nick knows what I like"). Woolen Kits was my first "back purchase," and the CD is preferable to the vinyl only because you can toss it into the dashboard when you're tooling around town. Once you do, you'll hear crystal-clear pop that is outlined by raw nerves and group-vocal oblivion. 

I also owe a lot of thanks to Drew Gibson, both for providing review copies (Josh Millrod review is forthcoming, as is a Daniel Wyche interview/review), as well as providing a copy of Clearing's Tape Drag. As I documented earlier in the year, this was undoubtedly one of my favorite, and most consistent, ambient listens of the year. 

Rounding out the short listens is a whole batch of Geographic North 7" singles, specifically from the You Can't Hide Your Love Forever series. Pictured here is the brilliant 80s pop revival by Psychic Powers, but the series also includes experimental percussion, shortform drones, and both upbeat and downer variations of the best of 1980s pop. Much like Tuttle's release, any music that uses the snare drum as a lead instrument is quite all right with me, and this is one particularly stellar element of the Psychic Powers delivery. 

P.S., "I'm Not Your Stepping Stone" is a phenomenal song, and The Monkees are much better than a lot of people might expect. 

Since a lot of my 2014 listens were longer-form artists, I did not add terribly many longform psych oldies this year. However, the two longform performances I dug into were a Neu! reissue (Gronland), and Lyonnais, Want For Wish For Nowhere (Hoss, both pictured below). 

The Neu record was instantly recognizable, if only through the patterns and moves that have been appropriated by contemporary psych artists. It is always fun to hear early sources of inspiration for contemporary musicians, and Neu must hold a specific place among those who appreciate the gang of psych groups that populate current releases and trends. 

Neu showcase two elements of krautrock that are arguably missing from even the best contemporary variations on that scene:

 (1) They exhibit more moments of complete freedom than contemporary variations. This results in some powerful sequences of cymbal scratches, as well as some oddball moments (such as the LP-closing singsong, which I'm still not sure what to make of after all these listens). In between those extremes, the group hammer their repetitive exercises and beats.

(2) Neu exhibit the light-hand and restraint that matches elements of Can and Kraftwerk, among other early electronic artists. There is a type of "warmth" or softness that counteracts the urgency of the beats and grooves. As a result, the rhythmic exercises feel organic, almost rolling along in a gentle manner, which allows those repetitions to breathe. 

Granted, there are many current psychedelic groups with fine touches and freeform moments, but Neu combine the best of both elements on their debut. 

While I was mourning the closing of the great San Francisco resurgence, given the disbandment of key groups and the mass migration to Los Angeles, I found a new source of inspiration in Jefferson Airplane. Most will call the group a key hippie band, but the honest truth is that this group produces rebel rhythm & blue distortions that almost perfectly coincide with "classic" Oh Sees records (I here have Help! and ...Master's Bedroom in mind, but there are other Oh Sees records that fit this argument). "3/5 of a mile in 10 seconds" could have appeared on either one of those records, with only a minimal amount of de-polishing needed to match the rowdy, live timbre of classic Oh Sees. It's all there: boy-girl vocals, prominent harmonies, reverb-clean percussive guitar, untamed leads, you name it. I always though Surrealistic Pillow (RCA) was quite a good record, but I never had as much fun listening to it as I did once I finally found an original vinyl version. 

Finally, I missed the Clone Records resurfacing the first time it hit Permanent Records, so I dutifully obliged this time the records showed up. While I listened to more punk this year than in any other year of my life (probably), I found this 1970s blend of pub rock, progressive moves, and hard rock absolutely stunning. These musicians feel like they're not quite sure what they want to do; it's rather aimless in some ways, or completely without genre. Clone perfectly captures the coexistence of glam, punk, and metal ideals in the midst of the 1970s, which effectively destroys the fashionable orthodoxy for any of those particular genres. What a breath of fresh air! The Teacher's Pet single was one of my favorite recommendations I received all year, and I truly enjoyed it along with these wicked Bizarros and Rubber City Rebels jams.




Experiencing Vinyl
Experiencing Vinyl #2

Record Collection, 2009-2014
Tapes With Friends

Language of Reconciliation

I am guilty. Guilty of taking every privilege I have ever been granted, guilty for being born into a neighborhood secured by insurance agencies and reaped the benefits of urban planning, guilty for being placed into schools that were freely chosen, guilty for having access to solid financial aid for college, guilty for having a family that is able to support that aid, guilty for being able to freely shop, guilty for questioning authority without violent retribution or expulsion, guilty for exerting authority even in situations where I am not the uniformed person, guilty for freely walking, guilty for living in neighborhoods where the violence does not apply to me.

I am guilty of even more than this.

This feeling is appropriate. I wish that I could do more. More than writing politicians, engaging with friends, trying my best to be a good person, and working as best as I can to empathize with every person I encounter. This is simply not enough. Feeling guilty is a perfectly rational response to horrendous injustices, especially when those injustices are executed in my name, or rather, for my face, or for my privilege, to ensure my secure status in society. And those injustices burn my eyes, they destroy the value of any security whatsoever, for that security requires that the backs of others carry the absolute weight of sheer volatility, vagrancy, and violence.

At what point is this security worthwhile? As we become more aware of the startling, violent injustices committed in our names against others, will white Americans be willing to challenge their own securities to improve society? We are insulated from violence: our people conspired to form slums through financial measures and planning policies that designed our neighborhoods-in-fortresses. Our people conspired to perpetuate those slums by lending insecure funds to minorities looking for any chance to improve their lifestyle and gain a piece of security. Our people continually encourage a form of political austerity that forces budget cuts that harm the least among us, and in fact allow us to strengthen our position in society.

This is unacceptable.

Encountering our guilt is one way to form a language of reconciliation. We must face ourselves, and truly interrogate our privilege, in order to create an equal society. We can only listen; we must stop our condemnations of "black rioters," and our "outrage" at other forms of black violence. We must listen to pleas that describe specific wrongs, specific transgressions, however large, or however small, and we must urge them to stop. If we are outside of the realm of protest movements, if the comfort of the middle class has swallowed us whole, we must use that power to our advantage: write our representatives, demand changes, or even not that we do not want atrocious injustices committed in our names.

If these ideas seem convoluted and strange, it is because the institutions that have formed our privileges have also successfully masked themselves and pinned the blame on others. A brief history of racism bears this out: We steal your land; when you don't own property, we point and say, "Why are you so poor and lazy?" We steal your ability to own your labor; when you're unable to apply your abilities in the best possible labor market, we say, "Why can't you get a job?" We impede your access to sound credit, and when you can't own your business, or can't afford college, can't own your home, or default on your mortgage, we say, "Why aren't you able to better your own lot? Why can't you pull yourself up from your bootstraps and make it work?" We take away your access to institutional justice, barring your chance to successfully see your transgressors in court, and when you protest, we ask, "What is the point of this violence?" We declare war on your neighborhoods, call your neighborhoods war zones, and violently enforce those areas, then say, "Why are you so violent? Why can't you accomplish your goals peacefully?"There is more to racism, of course, but it is worth noting that the history of racism can be summarized in five sentences.

This is unacceptable. This is why I feel guilt. My identity, on the surface, is oppressor. This is accomplished in my name. We must reconcile these wrongs, and we have the benefits to do so: we have the security of police forces, equity, financially sound neighborhoods, open ears from politicians, media, and other privileged and powerful people. Instead of asking for specific gains, it would be telling to write our representatives and tell them that our white privilege is no longer acceptable. We want everyone to be able to share in our open, secure society, to be free from violence, to be able to take the same chances, learn the same theories, work in the same executive offices, hold the same political offices, own the same homes, and have the same access to credit.

This is our burden. Make no mistake, it is ours. This is why I feel guilty. Yet, by confronting this guilt, by letting it flow through my veins, I understand this much: we must listen. We must write. We must encounter our own privilege, and we must either make peace with it, or demand that others share in it. Our language of reconciliation begins here, with guilt, but also open ears. Are we up to the task to invite others into our circles? Do we want better institutions? If we care for society to improve, this is where we must begin, and we must know that we can improve our society even if we are not on the frontline of protest, violence, or combat.

American Band Championship Belt: Challengers

Steven Hyden wrote an article on Grantland this week entitled "The American Band Championship Belt," in which he handed out Championship Titles for the most iconic, successful, and/or influential American bands of the last 50 years. Overall, the list is quite good, including exceptional picks like Sly & The Family Stone for 1971. Those types of tough picks exemplify a music fan laboring over difficult decisions about which stories to tell about American music. As an ardent apologist for the last decade of American music, I was stuck on the following entry for Deerhunter (they won the belt for '08-'10):

Overview: I love Deerhunter. My favorite album of the ’10s so far is Halcyon Digest, and I like Microcastle nearly as much. But let’s be frank: The last six years are the weakest ever for American bands. It’s not even close, really. There are still good bands, but they don’t matter like the other groups on this list. If you don’t know who Deerhunter is, you’re likely with the majority of readers. Please listen to them. You’ll thank me later.

The Black Keys followed Deerhunter as the Champion from 2011-2014, which is somewhat difficult to stomach in an era that saw the rebirth / re-exposure of garage rock. For example, Thee Oh Sees destroyed all comers, even their own scene, with their prolific output. Pick an album, any album, they're all probably better than The Black Keys. That's not a knock on The Black Keys as much as it's a recognition of the fact that albums like Carrion Crawler / The Dream are pinnacles of garage rock's potential.

Yet, it is worth noting the difficulties of spreading the message of Thee Oh Sees far and wide: their records are mostly distributed by outfits such as Revolver / Midheaven, which basically ensures they won't ever have to worry about embarrassing themselves on Saturday Night Live (although, Ty Segall Band proves this "distribution argument" wrong with their lightning-quick performance on David Letterman. Thee Oh Sees did appear on Carson Daily's show). This factionalism inherent in American rock represents an earlier era, one peppered with small labels, stacked independent touring caravans, and bands that play raw, breakneck paces. I'm referring as much to the late-1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s as much as I am to the hardcore explosion of the 1980s.

Curiously, the 1950s are absent from Hyden's list, which could be explained by convenience (50 years of Champions has quite a nice ring to it). On the other hand, America's 1950s bands exhibit a type of primal rock, rockabilly, or country sound, or flat out rhythm & blues. The divisions between rhythm & blues and rock are unfortunate, and one of the strengths of Hyden's lists is that he masterfully nods to important rock, rap, funk, and R&B acts. So far so good. If one pushes the rhythm & blues tension back to its origins, and stretches the Championship Belts into the 1950s, suddenly factionalism, niches, and small-scale success is not as problematic (although there are certainly some popular artists in the 1950s, too).

Interestingly, Hyden includes a rule that no "& the" bands can be included in his list of Champions.

A very important rule that clarifies the process and makes the list more interesting. Without it, the belt winners would simply be the same old familiar list of popular singer-songwriters with celebrated backing bands. While I agree that, say, the E Street Band is a vital organization, its identity is absorbed by Springsteen’s persona. Springsteen is known simply as “Springsteen” whether or not he’s recording with the E Street Band. Therefore, it is not a true band for our purposes. Every band on this list is known first and foremost as a band. (Warning: I violate this rule twice.)

This is not a problem in R&B, where working with a solid leader or revolving corps of backing players was quite normal (this should sound familiar to anyone who follows the line-ups of most contemporary independent bands, who swap players rather frequently depending on their needs, vision, touring schedules, etc.). If the list begins in the 1950s, there ought to be no issue with "& the" bands, for almost everyone is an "& the," from Clyde McPhatter & The Drifters to Buddy Holly & The Crickets (both absolutely necessarily Champions, by the way, or at least serious Challengers). Elvis with The Jordanaires is another interesting -- and chart-topping -- pair, and there's all sorts of backing-band magic, personnel swaps, and intrigue during the girl group era of the early 1960s. Besides, overall, there shouldn't necessarily be an issue with celebrated backing bands following popular singer-songwriters (see The Byrds, one of Hyden's challengers, for several interesting reasons: not only did the group itself cut their teeth recording seminal Bob Dylan songs, but Roger McGuinn played lead guitar and sang in key incarnations, and there's always the issues of studio players inserted into the mix). This happens everywhere, including Deerhunter (a Champion) and even popular rock bands like Weezer (where Rivers Cuomo sings lead and plays lead guitar).

Those 1950s: The 1950s featured some raucous American bands, as well as some delightfully soft pop and folk music. As previously mentioned, The Drifters started their extensive career, certainly playing some of the best songs during the vocal driven R&B era (and backing the inimitable Clyde McPhatter). The Clovers' "Sh-Boom" is a strong enough song to enter them into the equation of Champions. Roy Orbison started his career, Buddy Holly enjoyed considerable success forming a minimal rockabilly sound (as well as more symphonic excursions), and other extremely successful groups included The Kingston Trio, The Platters, The Everly Brothers, and The Fleetwoods. Bandleader Big Joe Turner also provides considerable trouble for the "band" list, as two of his key songs ("The Chill is On" and "Sweet Sixteen") were recorded with Van "Piano Man" Walls and his orchestra. Certainly it is worth extending the string of American Band Champions to 1951 to celebrate Big Joe Turner's rowdy rhythm & blues achievements.

Girl Groups: Before the American Band Championships begin in 1964, a curious trend occupies the Billboard's "hot" charts. A gang of girl groups, such as The Shirelles and The Ronettes, turned rowdy R & B into lovestruck, empowering, or wistfully short sides. Hyden touches on this with The Supremes, who are a Challenger to The Beach Boys in 1964, but the girl group trend is arguably more significant than a secondary mention (and one sees this if the American bands story is started several years earlier).

The girl group narrative is important because it can be cashed-out, continuously, throughout American music history. Be it through new wave music like The Go-Gos, R&B like TLC, SWV, Salt-N-Pepa, or Destiny's Child, or rock music like Sleater-Kinney (a Challenger in Hyden's article, but arguably the greatest single band in American music history, for their appropriation of punk rock, their application of feminist scenes in popular culture, and their RIFFS!). Obviously, one can dive ever deeper into this scene of great American girl bands -- in fact, I gather an entire list can be made of girl-centric music from 1964-present, and that such a list would tell a significant story about American bands.

Influential Patterns: While thinking about The Black Keys and Deerhunter, it struck me that several extremely influential bands were missing from the list of contenders. Of course, this will happen in any list exercise -- I'll miss influential bands in this feature, too. Depending on the story, though, missing influential bands can be an issue, and in this case Deerhunter and The Black Keys owe considerable debt to American bands ranging from The Bassholes and Mr. Airplane Man to The Amps / The Breeders, The Everly Brothers, and The United States of America. In fact, depending on your viewpoint, one could argue that Deerhunter is The United States of America, The Amps, and The Everly Brothers.

Certainly, one could counter that citing influential groups would defeat the purpose of such a list -- Deerhunter are a great band because of how they churn influences into equally ambient and rocking sounds. Goodness, could you imagine how Nirvana breaks down if you simply look at their influences? Arguably, Mudhoney released the most important (and best) grunge record with Sub Pop, and The Pixies exemplified college rock, but Nirvana certainly was more than the sum of hardcore underground ("actual"?) grunge and college rock. No, Nirvana were great because of their energy, conviction, and songwriting chops, as much as their exemplification of certain influential independent bands.

On the other hand, this argument about influence can go the other way, too. What good is influence if the corporate hands turn Nirvana into years of Nickelback (thankfully not American) and Creed (unfortunately American)? Creed is another band that didn't made Hyden's list, presumably because Nirvana and Pearl Jam were already mentioned. That Kurt Cobain's suicide created a power-vacuum filled by clueless executives says more about major labels than it does about Nirvana, but Nirvana's influence must bear the years of Creed and Nickelback, too. Oddly enough, if one is concerned about factionalism or niche markets in contemporary music, one can blame Cobain and major label executives for that, too. It seems difficult to call Nirvana's legacy influential without recognizing that because of the series of events in the 1990s, we now have fractured independent markets (which are GREAT!).

The way one views influences is significant for developing a specific story about American rock. Perhaps if the goal is to culminate with Deerhunter and The Black Keys, it is indeed important to list The Velvet Underground as the most influential band during the mid-to-late 1960s. But, if one lists The 13th Floor Elevators as the most influential group during that era, perhaps it is less difficult to see small, regional, factional groups like Thee Oh Sees as significant bands in the current era.

Regions: If one thinks about contemporary factions, one notices strong regional influences. Thee Oh Sees, White Fence, and Ty Segall Band are just some of the artists first associated with San Francisco's scene of musicians and labels, and now associated with Los Angeles. Following that legacy, one can find interesting traditions to mine, from Big Brother and the Holding Company and Quicksilver Messenger Service (both worthy Challengers, if not Champions, in America's band traditions). In this case, an album like Surrealistic Pillow by The Jefferson Airplane might be more important than The Velvet Underground (I should make it clear that I'm not bashing The Velvets. I absolutely love them, especially their grand bootleg series and gnarly guitar tones. But, the point is to really press exactly what was influential and great in the history of American bands).

One especially interesting region that has (at least) a six decade story to tell is that of Texas (and, specifically, Austin). The 13th Floor Elevators are one of the most significant regional bands in American history, and they spur a series of continually under-the-radar-yet-on-the-pulse group of musicians from Nice Strong Arm to current groups like Spray Paint (who are employing one of the most radical guitar sounds amidst washes of unceremonious fuzz in contemporary American rock). The Texas list of challengers gets even more fun if one expands their reach to Houston, which includes everyone from ZZ Top to Red Krayola.

Arguably, the same lineage can be traced throughout many other regions; Seattle, Olympia, CLEVELAND, Washington, D.C., Detroit, Athens, Minneapolis, etc. Some of these regional acts appear on Hyden's list -- particularly Minnesotans Husker Du and The Replacements (in fact, Hyden's list includes an excellent Minnesotan lineage from Husker Du through to The Hold Steady). Undoubtedly, those bands tell a significant story about the development of American music distribution from "major labels" back to small-scale, factional scenes. That story is told over, and over, and over again in many other American cities.

The Monkees: If The Black Keys are the most significant American Band currently playing, there is an interesting logic that can be applied backwards on the list. Specifically, The Black Keys are most important because they are incredibly popular (I remember when they sold out Chicago's Aragon Ballroom for several consecutive New Year's Eve shows a few years back), and one cannot possibly know which underground groups will be most important from the contemporary scene (this is the gist of an argument The Empty Bottle and Hyden conveyed to me via Facebook and Twitter, respectively).

Yet, if one cannot know which contemporary acts will be most influential, and popular groups therefore are given more importance during their specific time, including groups like The Velvet Underground as Champions tells an incomplete story: if this list was made in 1967 or 1968, The Monkees would probably be regarded as the most popular, significant American band -- certainly, their place on TV, radio, and record sales supports that claim. Why do we use hindsight to forget about, or disparage, or underplay the importance of acts like The Monkees? Presumably, this is exactly what journalists will do when they're writing this list in 2030: The Black Keys will be booted, in favor of someone like Purling Hiss or Bitchin' Bajas or something. And the argument will be, "well, Bitchin' Bajas turned out to be really influential due to their fusion of krautrock, jazz, and experimental music within an accessible rock framework." Or, "Purling Hiss effectively used shred-happy, wide open guitar tones to return rock music to a competent, solo-happy exercises." Or who knows: maybe it will be a Drill group from Chicago, etc.

(One can make this argument in nearly every American decade. Groups like Chicago, Boston, Journey, Bon Jovi, Creed, etc., have been quite popular to Americans. Obviously, one can argue that they weren't necessarily influential in the way The Velvet Underground, Parliament, or Black Flag were. Yet, if one can note that The Black Keys are currently the most influential American band, it shouldn't be that far of a stretch to praise Creed at the turn of the decade.)

It simply is not satisfying to say, "we cannot know what the future will bring." This is precisely the type of exercise where one can put their neck on the line and argue about what is most important in contemporary music. I say this as a total apologist for contemporary groups, precisely because American bands are quite good at the moment. Probably better than ever. Factional, regional templates allow musicians to fuse krautrock, R&B, experimental formats, and other sorts of noise in ways that acts like Guns N'Roses never had to do in a large commercial format. So, if we cannot know the future, and can only judge what is influential, important, or great via what is most popular, The Monkees ought to claim their rightful spot as America's finest purveyor of beat music in the mid-to-late-1960s. Just like The Black Keys currently are regarded as quite a popular band.

Blindspots: 

(1) Hyden's "& the" rule seems to create quite an interesting series of exclusions throughout American history.

If the list is expanded beyond the 1960s, and into the 1950s, Les Paul & Mary Ford are absolutely crucial to American music. In fact, without this duo, it is arguable that other forms of experimental multi-tracking would not have been palatable in pop tastes. Les Paul manipulated tape as much as anyone in music history, and his combo records with Mary Ford are playful and surreal (as much as they are good, clean pop).

Excluding Simon & Garfunkel in the mid-1960s seems rather strange. Same with The Mamas & The Papas -- they were so influential, they actually helped organize one of America's most important pop music festivals ever. Yet, Simon & Garfunkel were a band; they were a duo, just like The Black Keys. That they needed supporting musicians at times is not really important -- last I saw, The Black Keys play with extra musicians, too. Simon & Garfunkel exemplified American folk tropes in the pop format, and even if some of their jokey attempts to rip off Bob Dylan are tough to stomach, their light, psychedelic stylings on albums like Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, & Thyme more than make up for the rough spots.

There are some other uniquely American "&" bands (but not "& the"): Sonny & Cher, Lee Hazlewood & Nancy Sinatra, Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young, and so on. I'm not sure if these groups were all excluded because of their "&," but some of these bands are absolutely crucial to the development of American pop tastes.

(2) Some factional genres are surprisingly absent from Hyden's list -- this, of course, can be understood, for Hyden appears to be working toward a grand narrative about the development of R&B and rock tastes through major commercial American acts (with some notable punk canon exceptions).

It may be due to my age, but the exclusion of emotional hardcore groups seems intriguing. I'm not arguing that bands from The Nation of Ulysses to Fugazi, or Alkaline Trio to Braid to Sunny Day Real Estate to Death Cab For Cutie necessarily need to be American Band Champions. Perhaps these groups exemplify American factionalism, which explains why they are not noted as significant influences in the history of American bands. I also remember an era in which every damn one of us were starting high school emo-influenced bands.

I absolutely despise the idea of "Adult Alternative," but there were a series of soft-rocking bands that appeared once again in the mid-to-late 1990s and early 2000s: Third Eye Blind, Tonic, Matchbox 20 immediately come to mind, perhaps fulfilling the legacy of Chicago or Simon & Garfunkel (albeit with a louder, slightly more distorted sound). Again, I'm not arguing that these bands are Championship-material, but I do think it's worth asking whose tastes determine what is influential. In the grand scheme of things, "Adult Alternative" might be the rock'n'roll age's answer to the crooners or pre-pop forms of the 1950s.

Folk music also has a number of serious threads throughout the 20th century, some of which enter pop markets. Here, one can jump from The Kingston Trio or Chad Mitchell Trio to Simon & Garfunkel and The Mamas & The Papas to Fleet Foxes. These types of trends exhibit a rather interesting trait to American music: perhaps American music is fatally factional, and groups are influential precisely according to the type of music one is attempting to make. In this scenario, American bands speak to specific traditions, or communicate via specific codes, rather than attempt to speak to broad audiences. So, obviously, if you're trying to start a band like Fleet Foxes, The Velvet Underground is probably not as important or influential as Simon & Garfunkel. That's not a bad thing; Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, & Thyme is quite a good record, and so is White Light / White Heat. Those records are talking past one another in a really important way.

(3) I might be a total sucker, but I remember Boyz II Men as an incredibly popular fusion R & B group. In fact, their album title even advertised their affinity for Philadelphia soul and Motown R&B.

(4) What does one do with gangsta rap? This probably falls under the same issue of, "What does one do with emotional hardcore"? N.W.A. get a shout-out from Hyden, but perhaps they deserve more for basically launching the careers of an entire set of musicians hellbent on brutal commentary. (I'd argue that gangsta rap might even be more important than punk insofar as gangsta rappers actually spoke to specific injustices and perceptions of violence and authority, rather than producing fashionable angst).

Conclusions:
Ultimately, if one wants to argue that contemporary American bands are weak, one has to retell previous American music history in one specific way. Perhaps American commercial bands really must take off after the British Invasion, which forever holds American bands to a position of inadequacy around the world. On the other hand, one can embrace contemporary American bands by exploring the 1950s, girl groups, and regionalism in American music. American bands are always better than they used to be: they are always great, because they are always speaking to factionalism and regionalism. This story about American bands predates The Beatles, and it begins with everything from Les Paul & Mary Ford to Chad Mitchell Trio to The Drifters to The Ronettes to The Sonics, etc. It is in this spirit that one can specifically understand the influence, importance, and greatness of contemporary American bands. This history of extensive factionalism and regionalism is precisely why I am an apologist for contemporary American bands.

2014 NL Central 8 Week Race

Date	Brewers	Cardinals	Pirates	Reds
August 4	Off	Off	Off	@ CLE
August 5	v. SFG	v. BOS	v. MIA	@ CLE
August 6	v. SFG	v. BOS	v. MIA	v. CLE
August 7	v. SFG	v. BOS	v. MIA	v. CLE
August 8	v. LAD	@ BAL	v. SDP	v. MIA
August 9	v. LAD	@ BAL	v. SDP	v. MIA
August 10	v. LAD	@ BAL	v. SDP	v. MIA
August 11	@ CHC	@ MIA	v. DET	off
August 12	@ CHC	@ MIA	v. DET	v. BOS
August 13	@ CHC	@ MIA	@ DET	v. BOS
August 14	@ CHC	v. SDP	@ DET	@ COL
August 15	@ LAD	v. SDP	@ WSH	@ COL
August 16	@ LAD	v. SDP	@ WSH	@ COL
August 17	@ LAD	v. SDP	@ WSH	@ COL
August 18	off	v. CIN	v. ATL	@ STL
August 19	v.TOR	v. CIN	v. ATL	@ STL
August 20	v.TOR	v. CIN	v. ATL	@ STL
August 21	off	off	off	v. ATL
August 22	v. PIT	@ PHI	@ MIL	v. ATL
August 23	v. PIT	@ PHI	@ MIL	v. ATL
August 24	v. PIT	@ PHI	@ MIL	v. ATL
August 25	@SD	@ PIT	v. STL	off
August 26	@ SD	@ PIT	v. STL	v. CHC
August 27	@ SD	@ PIT	v. STL	v. CHC
August 28	off	off	off	v. CHC
August 29	@SF	v. CHC	v. CIN	@ PIT
August 30	@ SF	v. CHC (2)	v. CIN	@ PIT
August 31	@ SF	v. CHC	v. CIN	@ PIT
September 1	@ CHC	v. PIT	@ STL	off
September 2	@ CHC	v. PIT	@ STL	@ BAL
September 3	@ CHC	v. PIT	@ STL	@ BAL
September 4	v. STL	@ MIL	off	@ BAL
September 5	v. STL	@ MIL	@ CHC	v. NYM
September 6	v. STL	@ MIL	@ CHC	v. NYM
September 7	v. STL	@ MIL	@ CHC	v. NYM
September 8	v. MIA	@ CIN	@ PHI	v. STL
September 9	v. MIA	@ CIN	@ PHI	v. STL
September 10	v. MIA	@ CIN	@ PHI	v. STL
September 11	v. MIA	@ CIN	@ PHI	v. STL
September 12	v. CIN	v. COL	v. CHC	@ MIL
September 13	v. CIN	v. COL	v. CHC	@ MIL
September 14	v. CIN	v. COL	v. CHC	@ MIL
September 15	off	off	off	@ CHC
September 16	@ STL	v. MIL	v. BOS	@ CHC
September 17	@ STL	v. MIL	v. BOS	@ CHC
September 18	@ STL	v. MIL	v. BOS	off
September 19	@ PIT	v. CIN	v. MIL	@ STL
September 20	@ PIT	v. CIN	v. MIL	@ STL
September 21	@ PIT	v. CIN	v. MIL	@ STL
September 22	off	@ CHC	@ ATL	off
September 23	@ CIN	@ CHC	@ ATL	v. MIL
September 24	@ CIN	@ CHC	@ ATL	v. MIL
September 25	@ CIN	off	@ ATL	v. MIL
September 26	v. CHC	@ ARI	@ CIN	v. PIT
September 27	v. CHC	@ ARI	@ CIN	v. PIT
September 28	v. CHC	@ ARI	@ CIN	v. PIT