WC2014 Day 1: Brazil vs. Croatia

Some teams must beat their opponents, others themselves.

Brazil, a strong contender at any international tournament, this year with the advantage of playing at home, must be considered the favorite for victory in the 2014 Word Cup. Given just how many stars are aligned to their benefit, but also given the tremendous pressure that the assumption of domination carries, it seemed somehow appropriate that the first score in their first match was an own goal. 

The match started with the typical jitters. First game, first day, and first World Cup for at least two of the players who proved to play a decisive role in Brazil's victory. The early minutes were indecisive to say the least, barely played at the typical level of either (or any world-class) team. Then, in the eleventh minute, the own goal, a deflection off the foot of Marcello, who was racing to defend against an excellent Croatian cross. Had Brazil become deflated after this event, any commentator could have been provided an easy symbol, the own goal standing for a collapse under the extreme pressure that the Brazilian team faces. But this was not to be. In fact, the goal seemed to have a calming effect. Finally, the game could start.

The initial stages of the first half were characterized by aggressive Brazilian attempts to even the score, and all credit is due, at least in this portion of the game, to the level-headedness of Croatian keeper Pletikosa, whose saves at crucial moments both helped to undermine the aforementioned Brazilian attack and provided the basis for the sporadic yet dangerous counter-attacks mounted by the Croatians. The next goal of the match, a well-placed shot to the corner by Brazlian star Neymar, evened the score, but did little to overcome the resolve of the Croatians, who continued to keep pace with the Brazilians even as their counter-attacking strategy left them without control of the ball for the majority of the match. 

Heading into the second half, it could have been, proverbially, anyone's game, and yet, in hindsight, it wasn't. Croatia's strategy was to attempt to make the most of a limited number of chances, while Brazil's was to maximize the number of chances in total, and the law of averages, at least this time, worked in Brazil's favor.

That's not to say the fight was over. After ten minutes of meandering play, the second half began in earnest, and the pace began to quicken as both sides sensed opportunity. Neither side could afford to let up; a draw was not in the cards. And it was, eventually, and forgive this segue, a card that would prove decisive as, in the 69th minute, contact between Croatian Lovren and Brazilian Fred resulted in a yellow card for Lovren and a penalty kick for Brazil. A controversial call to say the least, especially given the stakes. Regardless (or not), Neymar, with a near-save by Pletikosa notwithstanding, converted for Brazil and put his team ahead by one. It's here, in the 70th minute of the game, that I started to realize, and perhaps the Croatians began to sense it too, that, even though the score was 2-1, it was Brazil, in fact, who had scored all of the goals.

The last twenty minutes of the game were characterized by heavy attacking from the Croatians, and some agile counterattacking from the Brazilians, almost to the extent that one could describe the roles of the two teams being reversed from what they had been at the start of the match. The results, however, stayed the same. Croatia had a few close opportunities, including one involving another, well, arguable yet decisive call by the referee, but, ultimately, Brazil scored one more time, appropriately enough, or ironically enough, on a breakaway by Oscar, who took his shot at just the right moment, denying both the oncoming defenders behind him and the keeper in front of him the chance to make a play on the ball. That goal, in the 92nd minute, made the victory a decisive one instead of an ambiguous one.

Ultimately, the first match of the 2014 World Cup provided plenty of excitement and just a hint of controversy. While not quite playing with the absolute dominance demanded of them, Brazil showed at least that they do have the capacity to be the team everyone expects them to be, while the Croatian team, in their steadfast resilience, showed that they were capable of moving on from their group. While nobody will be surprised if Brazil wins it all, it may be that a few teams will find themselves at home, er, suprisingly prematurely if Croatia continues to play as they did today. It's going to be a good tournament.

WC2014: Preview

I had a lot of fun writing about the World Cup last time around and I plan on doing it again this tournament. As with the last time, I don't expect to see all the games, but I'll write what I can when I can.

My commentary, as before, will be from the perspective of someone who doesn't really follow soccer (football) outside of major tournaments, but who, hopefully, has a good sense of what is actually happening during a game. I don't know what to expect from individuals, or even national teams, outside of what can be learned from in-game commentary. But a good game is a good game, a bad one, well, bad. So I'll say my piece, and I'll have some fun.

I expect I will be watching most games at home. Without going into too much detail, even as I sit here in Providence, RI, my computer has, um, "somehow", found its way to London, so I'll be watching ITV's coverage online.

My thoughts on soccer haven't changed much over the years. Here are my prejudices, virtually unchanged from four years ago:

1. Screw The USA. Given my country's global dominance in so many facets of human existence, from war to blockbuster films to badly-roasted coffee, why bother longing for more? It's not a purely "Left" response on my part; putting aside drone strikes, it just seems more fun to watch other countries, especially smaller ones, get their chance, albeit within the restricted context of a soccer tournament, to have an outsized impact.

2. Brazil. It's always nice to think of the host winning, but I've always had an (ir)rational prejudice against this country's typical style of play. (EDIT: I know this seems silly but I have years of memories of games where the Brazilian strategy was basically "pass to the guy with one name". I know they've moved on a bit since then…)

3. Netherlands. Dissapointing show during Euro 2012 if I remember correctly. I've always enjoyed this country's typical style of play, the Total Football ideal, but this attitude seemed less prominent the last time around. We'll see…

4. Germany. What had been a stodgy team for years seemed to get a well-needed injection of youthful daring during Euro 2012. I'm curious.

5. England. In the same way that this country's music scene always seems to find a way to amaze me with its creativity, this country's soccer team always finds a way to amaze me with the creative ways in which they break the hearts of their fans. I know better than to get too attached emotionally now.

EDIT: 6. Belgium. A team off my radar, but after an evening of doing a lot more reading, well, I'm probably going to make a special effort to check them out this year. They're probably not off the radar of more committed spectators, but I'm getting the impression that they might yet still be somewhat of an unknown favorite, if that makes any sense.

That's all for now. Off for a quick lunch and then!

Taking A Break From Self-Pity

I'm more bored of it than you are, believe.

1) I've been thinking about Houllebecq again lately. Sadly, while most of the reviews I've read of him seem to mention his notoriety amongst the intelligentsia and the controversy he causes, well, nobody I've talked to in person in the last few years has actually read him, so. Yeah. I've been meaning to get my copy of Ben Jeffery's Zero book on him, but haven't yet (maybe I'll order along with Ghosts Of My Life when I have the cash). Until then, here's the best article I've come across so far. Mostly written for those who are familiar with the books, yet still comprehensible otherwise.

2) The article on Houllebecq mentions the quite-pertinent idea that no individual can live outside the historical circumstances in which he or she lives. It's important to keep this in mind when reading Richard Thomas on his idea of "No Concept Programming", which derides the post-ideological, catch-all nature of festival lineups. Perhaps the most important idea is that these varied lineups do reify capitalism's abstract concept of freedom-through-(consumer)-choice. So, in a sense, what seems to be post-idology is actually quite definable. It only seems different when the "products" are better.

I do think artists should be held responsible for their silence, especially in the avant-garde community, a world of people who know better but whose ties to the outdated narrative of Western art trap them into old models of subversion that, handily, are ripe for sponsorship (can anything actually be subversive if it doesn't subvert? I think the only way to actually be subversive is to find a way out of the supermarket completely, not to be a more "gourmet" product within it). There is no escaping history, true, but a better assessment of what has actually happened is in order. As long as we keep telling ourselves the same myths about the past, we'll never have the ability to change the future.

(Let's try this: what if Bohemia won and what we have now is the "victory" inherent in the last fifty or sixty years of development in popular music, broadly conceived? The article on Houllebecq makes it clear that a more "inclusive" version of the same world would not be better. Likewise, can we really argue that any art failed because it wasn't popular enough?)

I can't help but feel that corporate and state sponsorship is somewhat inevitable, even if it still should be resisted. In the same way that the state must both support "free enterprise" through subsidies (public works that facilitate commerce, bailouts, etc.) AND mitigate some of the damage done by these subsidies and their recipients through other subsidies (welfare, food stamps, health insurance, etc.), corporations dependent on aesthetic production, who exploit aesthetic production, must re-invest just enough of that money back into the production process in order to ensure that it can continue. It's not only because artists simply wouldn't make enough money otherwise: the demands of capitalism on the leisure time of the average punter must also make these festivals more alluring for those short on time and money but long on curiosity. Festivals are capital's solution to capital's problem.

(I can't help but think that, pathetically, Red Bull has done more good for electronic music than any other institution that has existed in the last fifteen years. But why?)

3) Oh do I have more to say? The last decent idea I've had recently: let's make a movie set in Nazi Germany in which nothing happens. Has it already been made? What's the point? I don't know, but it sounds intriguing.

Back To That Empty Space

Life Lessons

First off, I feel like I have finally become certain about two facts:

1. DJing is fundamentally conservative. At THIS point in history. More: ok.

So back when electronic music was an emergent culture, DJing was playing "those" records, the "right" records, for "those people", the "right" people. It was about consolidating shards of metal into a sword. Ugh. And yet I can't consider a better metaphor right now. Suffice it to say, consolidating and activating a cultural idea. What is/was so exciting about it was the feeling that, on the one hand, the records that one was playing were challenging, both aesthetically, and, more importantly, culturally, socially, politically, and yet, people were dancing. The pleasure of one, a critique of another.

And yet now, when it's not culture, post-ideology, when music is good taste and not bad, there's only two possibilities: lose the floor or lose your soul.

I remember a decade ago. Walking into a nightclub in Washington DC. The DJ was playing banging, militant techno at 150bpm to an empty floor. Idiot. Yes. I mean, you know, build to it, right? Kiss first before fucking. But now I feel differently. Actually, I have for a while, but now I am damn sure. Because that idiot playing at 150bpm, who probably wasn't invited back next week, well, at least, at LEAST, he fucking believed. He believed. He did. And so he was able to, at least, say, yes, well, I'm playing the right records, it's just the people who are wrong. That's the attitude. Because. Well, I saw a friend play tonight. And he made the compromise, and it still failed.

He was building it, building all night long. NYC house classics. Good cuts, obvious cuts, yes, but good, and well-mixed. And then. He played an acid house record. A new one. Well, it came out last year. New enough. And it all went to hell. Not an especially abstract acid record. A banger. Cleared the floor. And he freaked out. Then Human League then Prince then De La Soul. And nothing worked. And he felt bad. And he shouldn't have. He set up that acid record perfectly. 99th percentile. First-class-ticket-to-Berlin-and-a-prime-slot-at-Berghain perfectly. And people walked. And so you have to say: fuck people. Seriously. The right record is the right record. It is. And if you don't get it, fuck you.

Acid house is almost thirty years old. THIRTY. You are out to hear a DJ spin house and you don't get it. It's on you. It's on you. Fuck it. Play that shit. I'll dance. Don't care if I'm the only one. Rather right and alone then wrong and surrounded.

2. I'm always just going to be the person who talks to "that person", not "that person". All the people I know who can DJ think I am a good DJ, but nobody else does. All the people I know who can write think I can too, but nobody else does. It's likely that I will be celibate for the remaining 40+ years of my life and graciously thanked by countless couples for my excellent relationship advice. And I have to learn how to not feel hurt. Because. The right record is the right record. It is. And if you don't get it, fuck you.

Love,

Love.

I Love You

I love you.

I love you. Because.

You remind me of:

The reflections of streetlights

upon the leaves
of trees

indifferent to our cause.

I miss this

I do.

I feel like I've corrupted this space somehow and I don't like coming back to it anymore.

Both writing about wanting to be a "real" writer and also ranting about the misery of my life in Providence with virtually no interesting insight has really made me ashamed of this place. Was it so bad, to just write a few half-decent and concise little essays every so often and then get a few links and even a few comments here and there?

What I miss, and this could be just as much a problem of changing methods of "content delivery" as anything else, is that I used to at least feel a part of some sort of discourse. It was never about trying to control, to be recognized, etc. I just wanted a seat at the table of ideas, even if it meant eating my dinner silently and listening.

Instead, I stupidly demanded more of a voice AND posted some of the most worthless, self-pitying crap of my life.

You should see what goes unpublished. I have 9,000 words of juvenile invective on just music alone!

I don't even know what I am doing to get page views anymore.

I can't even tell if what I am writing right now is part of the problem or part of the solution.

I'm lost. But not forever. I'll be back, but I'm not sure how yet. I need help. I need to do it myself. I need to be taught how to fish, but I might just steal your fucking fish and then plead hunger the next day.

This is not me signing off. Just trying to explain.

Love.