#anyway happy 60th everybody!!!

[gaybichon]

now you know i always talk about how my mom is an angel anyway it's her 60th birthday today everybody say happy birthday!

[hozierbyrne]

Hmmmm your links of fanfics that read like novels were really interesting (in a good way) do you by any chance have any more recs? I have free time and I’d like to fill it with amazing writing by amazing authors!!!

ahaha glad you found my previous recs interesting! happy to drop some more links.

lately i’ve been reading a TON of mdzs fic, so this list is going to lean that way! anyway here are some more recs under the cut, mdzs and otherwise, and i’ll try to keep to fics where canon knowledge isn’t needed as much:

the night war: 60th anniversary edition by praximeter (mcu, steve/bucky, canon compliant and set during the war) is a fic written in the style of a war memoir. it’s got FOOTNOTES, historical accuracy, and is honestly a tough read in that bucky is !! going through a whole lot !! but it’s beautifully done and i know that most people don’t like reading first person fic but the framing of this as a war journal just makes so much sense for bucky and i couldn’t recommend it more

directive by magisterpavus (vld, shiro/keith, android au) is sci-fi in all the best ways. most of my favorite sci-fi stories are a study in what it means to be human, and what it means to be a person, and whether that’s the same thing. much hurt/comfort, a soft gentle love in a harsh world, and an altogether satisfying experience

you can tell everybody this is your song by woodchoc-magnum (911, buck/eddie, canon divergence) is about yes, those firemen i briefly put all over your dashes and probably will again when season 4 resumes. or maybe i won’t because this series is written better than the show! anyway you honestly don’t need canon for this you just need to know that it’s the days and lives of a firehouse. some kidfic elements bc eddie has a son, lots of hurt/comfort and rescue missions, and an unshakeable love between eddie and buck.

unstrictly ballroom by ariaste (mdzs, lwj/wwx, ballroom..... dancing.... au) is an unmitigated delight and also made me cry like three times. those are not mutually exclusive. this is probably readable even without having watched the show, like you technically wouldn’t need to know the events of the show or the novel to follow, although obviously the characters would be.... confusing. it’s what it says on the tin and it’s tender and full of so much love and pain and pursuit of justice and also some beautiful dancing.

live from new york by varnes (mdzs, lwj/wwx, snl.... au...) is both laugh out loud funny and heartwrenching and so full of heart. the characters ring really really true and lwj’s pov is a delight here, dry and long-suffering and also just bursting at the seams with affection for wwx, as usual. one of my favorite modern aus and like a fandom classic for Good Reason imo

the best of you by sysrae (mdzs, lwj/wwx, modern au) is an oh my god they were roommates fic but make it angst ridden. but not in an overdone way. if that makes sense. much hurt/comfort, both emotional and physical! very tender! much devotion! wwx repeating getting told that his feelings matter! therapy! anyway, just a very good modern au if you are into that. you probably don’t!! need to know much about canon!!

wide enough and wild by impossibletruths (mdzs, lwj/wwx, burial mounds fic in spirit but not in practice) technically probably does not belong on this fic rec list because it is definitely not going to make sense without prior knowledge of canon BUT it has to go on here because i’ve read it like six times since starting the show lmao. it’s about the [clenches fist] devotion and love, and the trust gained through steadiness and goodwill and a fierce desire on lwj’s part to do good by wwx. anyway as we all know i go feral for that #loyaltykink and what could be more loyal than lwj making that choice to turn his back on the cultivation world to help wwx and the wens. ANYWAY. fuck. sorry. i love this fic. it’s soft and gentle and they love each other. god. jesus. i’m going to lose my mind.

[gigsoupmusic]

Darius Brubeck Quartet - 60th Anniversary Of Time Out. Jazz Café, London (14/12/19)

On the 14th of December, 60 years ago to the day, Dave Brubeck released one of the greatest collections of compositions of all time. The 7-track Time Out is an exploration of metric complexity, with each track taking on an unfamiliar time signature and turning it into a work of accessible, melodic genius. With Paul Desmond on saxophone and Brubeck himself on piano, the album wasn’t an amateur affair. Tonight, London’s iconic Jazz Café plays host to Brubeck’ son, Darius, and his own quartet. They’re playing through Time Out from start to finish, honouring the beautiful melodies and inspired chord sequences, while each member puts their own spin on the improvised sections. The second half of the show explores Darius’ own Live In Poland, showing off his own compositional skill and performance ability. It doesn’t match that of his father (maybe the two sets should have swapped in their order...) but that wasn’t the focus of this evening anyway. Kicking off with the immortal ‘Blue Rondo A La Turk’ the tightness of this band comes through in full force. Brubeck is able to play the aggressive main 9/8 pattern just as well as the relaxed swung pattern over which the solos come. On saxophone is Dave O’Higgins, world renowned for his playing ability. While he hits every note, his soloing was lacking in some of the soul Paul Desmond was able to inject 60 years ago. ‘Not many inherit a hit’, Brubeck says of the album after the opening track concludes.

‘Strange Meadow Lark’ and ‘Three To Get Ready’ push things even further forward, with the delicate birdsong inspiration of the former being explained by Brubeck before starting the track. His own improvisation is extraordinarily like his fathers, whether this came naturally or he adds it in to appease fans and the origins of the tracks it’s hard to tell, but the block chords that bounce with syncopation above the harmonic patterns are reminiscent of an age of jazz that barely even exists these days. The bass solo in the second number was the highlight of the show so far, though, with young British bassist Matt Ridley exploring the full range of his instrument. Not letting the audience go without interesting facts for a single second, Brubeck introduces ‘Kathy’s Waltz’ by explaining how his sister (Cathy) had her name spelt wrong on the album sleeve and it was never changed. The band perfect the polymeter that comes towards the end of the track, creating a huge sound for an acoustic four-piece, channelling the days of Dave himself. While ‘Everybody’s Jumpin’’ and ‘Pick Up Sticks’ are arguably the weakest point of a phenomenal album, their relaxed bounce makes the Jazz Café dance. ‘Take Five’ should have been a little earlier in the setlist if the album’s original track-list is anything to go by, but Darius cleverly positions it towards the end, using the biggest selling jazz single of all time as an encore of sorts. Wesley Gibbens’ drum solo is masterful, using his tiny kit to its fullest potential, and pushing the limits of 5/4 with his rhythmic playing. O’Higgins fares much better on this track, injecting a breathy journey through this iconic Paul Desmond melody. As mentioned above, the second half of the show was less impressive. While expertly performed, the pieces were far less familiar and at times lacking in the compositional brilliance of Brubeck. That said, the delightfully happy and positive Darius maintained an impressive hold over his wonderful band, making sure that classic jazz remains relevant in the modern era. Considering the amount of young people in the audience tonight, the 60 years since Time Out was released obviously didn’t allow it to age a day. Read the full article

[brishu]

Everybody’s Heart’s in the Same Fucking Place

My shift at the Park Slope Food Coop is usually the first Saturday of the month (A Week). I am the squad leader for the 8:30 PM Food Processing shift and, for the past 9 years, I have amassed a spotless record of showing up drunk. Sometimes I wonder if a non-shift encounter with any of my squadmates would make them think, “There’s something different about you right now.” Under my drunken helm, nobody’s cut themselves on a cheese slicer or box cutter or tape roll blade. And for the most part nobody’s emerged from the coop’s basement after two and a half hours getting bossed around by a booze-soaked contrarian nursing any grievous emotional injuries. Actually, more often than not, somebody doing a make-up or holding up their end of a shift swap enjoys their time so much that they try to join our squad. 

But this is the Park Slope Food Coop and the self-righteousness is as abundant as the kale. I am not the first grump to notice that some people base their most cherished beliefs on whose approval they gain. Why would you want to brutalize the planet to access natural gas when you can oppose it and feel like you’re marching right alongside Mark Ruffalo? Would you rather your foreign policy views align with the sneering, bomb-happy conservatism of Norman Podhoretz or the serene brilliance of Noam Chomsky? These are obtuse dichotomies, to be sure. So here’s a specific one: I am skeptical of the gun control movement. Less than 10 minutes of research can tell anybody who wants to know that more than 1 million AR-15s get sold each year. For those who might stagger in horror at a number that high, I’d ask you to take a moment and consider some other information that sales figure connotes. Personally, I’m extremely reluctant to demonize that many people I don’t know. Setting aside the implicit interpersonal dynamics lecture and moving from cursory research to wonkier statistics, we can learn that mass shootings account for less than 1% of gun deaths in a given year. In 2017, 39,773 people were killed by guns in America. 23,854 or 60% were suicides, and of the 14,542 or 37% that were homicides, 117 fatalities fit the legal definition of “mass shooting.” If this sounds like I’m trying to minimize the horror inspired by mass shootings in America, it’s because I am. Does this mean I side with gun owners over victims of these atrocities? No, it does not. It means I reject the notion that those are the two sides pitted against each other. And I will assert that fear of losing a loved one in a mass shooting is about as mathematically sound as treating a lottery ticket like a reliable path to wealth. But there’s actual likelihood, and then there’s media-spurred terror. So I’m not exactly raring to see a penstroke turn several million law-abiding citizens into criminals just because an incident I heard about in the news upset me.

Anyway, I only mention this because one time a young guy doing a make-up on my Food Processing shift started lecturing me about the correlation between Scandinavian rights to bear arms (according to him, they have none) and the number of gun-related deaths they suffer there. And yes alcohol was a factor but I got really pissed off at this guy. In retrospect, I should have been patient and respectful as he regurgitated his boilerplate arguments. But I guess I was too busy getting rankled by his presumption that only cretins unworthy of respect could harbor views as indifferent to human suffering as mine, instead of thinking, “Hmm, this guy seems pretty smart and he’s rocking a terrific playlist and everyone on his squad seems to like him a lot so maybe there’s more to his viewpoint than my kneejerk assumptions have led me to believe.” So I unleashed a bunch of other data and upbraided him for being so obtuse that he presumed my suspicions about anti-gun rhetoric amounted to my being a MAGA-head. The basement got tense and I apologized for making things awkward for everyone and changed subjects to talk about movies (whereupon our anti-gun crusading dried mango bagger announced that he was boycotting Miramax’s ouevre. Good for him.). 

For years, our shift occurred the night before the Superbowl and the night before the Oscars and we worked hard to stock the shelves upstairs with enough cheeses, olives, nuts, dried fruits, teas and spices to sate the frenzied consumption that is de rigueur on these particular Sundays. Eventually, A-Week Saturday rotated away and it was up to some other squad to work like Santa’s unpaid elves to meet the demands on Pepper Jack and Brie. But somehow our shift remains on the one Saturday night when I refuse to exert myself (or get shitfaced): Marathon Eve. 

So last year I swapped shifts with someone who liked our squad so much that she joined. My policy is that as long as you show up with some regularity, you’re welcomed warmly on our shift. We care about each other’s families and careers, opinions on matters political and artistic, and general well-being. This is less some sort of management strategy enacted to optimize productivity than a simple extension of the good will I feel toward nearly all people and certainly all Food Processors (even the Pulp Fiction boycotter who pronounces Weinstein incorrectly). Now. At our shift in August, the subject of the coop’s long, tortured debate on carrying Israeli products came up. I love this subject, even though I disagree with almost every other view anybody has on it. I don’t agree with ardent supporters of Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions, and I certainly don’t agree with the ultra-orthodox Jews who consider all criticism of Israel tantamount to Naziism.

My first exposure to this debate was at a General Meeting in the summer of 2012. The meeting was held in the ballroom of Congregation Beth Elohim, of which we are members. People I expected to shoot down anything anti-Israel (because they looked like elderly Jews) stood up passionately decrying coop complicity in Israeli policies they already unwillingly supported by paying taxes. And then some younger people with tattoos and gender fluidity vibes stood up in defense of selling Israeli products. The debate was passionate but civil. I found all arguments convincing and simply loved being in a room among people who cared so deeply about doing the right thing. Ultimately the boycotters advanced their initiative one more rung along the coop’s bureaucracy, and the next General Meeting would include a vote on whether to have a coop-wide referendum to BDS or not to BDS. 

This meeting got so much publicity that the coop needed to rent a larger space, so 1,600 or 10% of all Park Slope Food Coop members filed into the auditorium at Brooklyn Tech. BDS advocates who were not coop members stood outside leafleting attendees, while school buses ferried several minyanim of ultra-orthodox Jews. Unlike this meeting’s predecessor, the tone was not civil and the arguments were not convincing. They were hystrionic pleas that transparently appealed to each speaker’s own moral vanity. Lost in the debate was any consideration for practical details like how much it would cost to stage a coop-wide referendum, or have the BDSers found alternative, morally acceptable sources for vegan marshmallows? And meanwhile, it became very clear, very quickly that the measure to hold a referendum was going to get voted down. So the series of speakers dabbling in petty-demagoguery was a depressing waste of time. 

Two months later, at a meeting I did not attend, the issue came up again, and aroused such anger that a physical altercation occurred. After that, the subject was banned from future General Meetings. While appreciating the moral passion on all sides, my personal view was that people who wanted to boycott should, but they had to acknowledge that other coop members wanted to buy these supposedly blood-soaked products and depriving them of that right felt like some kind of tyranny too. 

Anyway, the tortured history of the debate comes up every now and then and I always love hearing what other people think, and also amplifying my own view that the passions that made the debate inflammatory are part of what makes the coop so special to me. So during our August shift, the woman who had swapped with me on the first Saturday of November, 2018, said with no compunction whatsoever that Israel was guilty of genocide. And despite my inebriation (that night I had done most of my drinking at a dear friend’s surprise 60th birthday party), I was able to express disagreement with this term, and assurance that, whereas many people would hear that and go through a series of internal reactions that would result in antipathy toward the issuer of such a serious charge, I understood that her beliefs were motivated by a desire to do the right thing, whatever that may be. Now she may have thought that I was just another Jew defending the indefensible. And I may have thought she was just another self-righteous ignoramus who prizes wokeness over common sense. But speaking for myself, nobody’s just another anything. In my consumption of online commentary, I see a lot of “[that] tells you all you need to know about her.” And it amazes me that this is an acceptable way to rest your personal case against a person who is always more complex, and usually well-meaning, than you presume when you decide that one view, or one errant phrase is a full representation of another person’s soul. That the practice of basing a holistic view of another person on one political position is so blithely unexamined suggests to me that anxieties underlying our need to close our minds are the real problem. 

I got annoyed with my fellow squad member. In truth I’m still kind of annoyed, both with her, and with the consortium of opinion that sent her forth believing that accusing Israel of genocide is the right thing to do. And it would be more comfortable for me to let my annoyance snowball into full-blown contempt (spurred at some level by the same anxieties which lead to over-eager mind-closing), to tie her incorrect view of my people’s national homeland to the neuroses her parenting has visited on her daughter, even to her insufficient appreciation of my marathon running, all of which are trumped up charges to be sure. Plenty of people would do exactly this, with no real consequence. They’d condemn this person because her version of doing the right thing is in opposition to theirs. Where is the conscience that holds condemnation at bay? 

Either way, while I feel alright about being able to see the light in this person despite my ethyl-clouded mindframe augmenting the shadows cast by her risible political views, I still struggle to find the balance between advancing views I know to be correct with being more of a conduit than a catalyst. And it also feels unfair that I agonize over this stuff only to see significantly less introspective people exert greater influence. But none of that will stop me from getting rip-roaring drunk before my next coop shift.

[junker-town]

Mike Leach gets weirder (and Washington State gets better) with age

2018 was supposed to be a setback year for Leach and Wazzu. It was anything but.

Bill C’s annual preview series of every FBS team in college football continues. Catch up here!

Each year, it seems Mike Leach becomes a little more Mike Leach.

It’s been nearly 15 years since Leach started talking to his team about pirates and swords and nearly eight since he wrote a memoir with a pirate-themed title. Since, he’s moved on to writing a book about Geronimo (nearly five years ago now), lecturing anybody who will listen about sovereign immunity, endorsing a presidential candidate (only fair, since said candidate once endorsed him), and, most recently, teaching a course about warfare and tactics (in which an assignment is, naturally, to draw up football plays) and visiting the Middle East.

It seems age makes an eccentric more of an eccentric, which, considering where the bar was originally set, is awfully impressive. But it also seems that age has made this eccentric football coach ... a better football coach.

It really shouldn’t be like that. Thirty years ago, Leach and Hal Mumme, one of his first bosses, worked to create a revolutionary, pass-happy vision of football, and 22 years ago, when Mumme was named Kentucky’s head coach, they took it to major college football.

In the years that followed, after Leach had embarked on his own career trail and Mumme had been fired from Kentucky, Mumme became something of a football gypsy, constantly working somewhere new — Southeastern Louisiana, New Mexico State, McMurry University, Bellhaven University, etc. His next gig will evidently be as an offensive coordinator in the XFL.

When I reference Mumme now, it’s mostly in calling someone a “Hal Mumme type” — one who influences others who end up succeeding more than he does. (Hello, NFL Chip Kelly.)

Leach, however, has held two football jobs in the last 20 years and won in both. And while Mumme’s tactical and/or leadership model began to wither under scrutiny, Leach gets better the longer he is in a job.

He averaged seven wins over his first two seasons at Texas Tech, then 8.4 over his next five, then 9.3 over his last three. It took until his ninth year for him to break through to double-digit wins in Lubbock. At Wazzu, he did it in his seventh. He has pulled off something few coaches ever manage: four consecutive years of improvement.

(This is neither here nor there, but hot damn, was Wazzu bad in 2008-09.)

That this streak reached a fourth year is mind-blowing. There was reason, both football-based and not, to believe that Leach’s Cougars were due a setback last fall.

He had briefly accepted the Tennessee head coaching job in December 2017, and it can be hard to win your players back after something like that. Plus, his staff experienced a drastic amount of churn, and he brought in nearly 10 new assistants, including a new defensive coordinator to replace Alex Grinch, an inspired hire and the new Oklahoma defensive coordinator. On top of all of that, his team (and its remaining staff) had to reckon with the death of a teammate in Tyler Hilinski.

In last year’s preview, I wrote that the best-case scenario was that “Leach’s weird brand of steadiness could create normalcy where none should exist.” But I thought that would result in maybe a top-50 S&P+ ranking and seven wins or so.

Instead, with a mustachioed grad transfer throwing to a pretty green receiving corps (among Wazzu’s 10 leading receivers, there were four freshmen and sophomores and one senior), the Cougs somehow improved by more than a touchdown per game offensively, and until the slightest of fades at the end of the year, Wazzu was in the S&P+ top 25.

WSU dropped a controversial September decision to USC and suffered its annual Apple Cup loss to rival Washington (for all his strengths, Leach hasn’t figured out how to beat Chris Petersen yet) but swept the other 11 games. The Cougars beat Pac-12 South champion Utah, beat Oregon for the fourth straight year (and by double digits for the third straight), beat Stanford for the third straight year, survived a thrilling Alamo Bowl against Iowa State, and finished 10th in the AP poll, their best finish in 15 years.

Whew.

In terms of personnel and staffing, the turnover has been minimal this offseason. By comparison, anything would be. Leach snared another grad transfer — this time Gage Gubrud from nearby Eastern Washington — to potentially lead an offense that returns a vast majority of last year’s touches. His offensive line is experienced, as well, though his defense has been thinned out a bit. A fifth year of improvement feels like too much to ask, but, well, so did the fourth year.

Offense

When Gubrud originally committed to Washington State after three years at EWU, I was, for a moment, incredibly intrigued. Gubrud is an athletic dude — he did, after all, put up 99 non-sack rushing yards while throwing for 475 when the Eagles upset Leach’s Cougs back in 2016.

Might he add a rushing element to the Leach attack?, I wondered. Might Leach use Gubrud’s athleticism in different—and then I stopped thinking and made fun of myself. Leach doesn’t change his offense.

Leach’s system is and will always be based around throwing the ball more than everybody else in college football. While the average FBS team runs the ball about 60 percent of the time on standard downs, Wazzu ran just 32 percent of the time last year. While the average team runs about 35 percent of the time on passing downs, Wazzu ran 18 percent of the time. Might Gubrud be inclined to scramble a bit more here and there? Sure, maybe. But Leach isn’t changing a damn thing.

Photo by William Mancebo/Getty Images

Gage Gubrud (8)

Of course, we don’t know for sure that Gubrud will be the starter. Seniors Trey Tinsley and Anthony Gordon have both seen the field here and there, and four-star redshirt freshman Cammon Cooper is waiting his turn as well.

Still, none of those guys have Gubrud’s track record. Despite missing parts of each of the last two seasons with injury, he’s still thrown for 9,984 career yards and 87 touchdowns. He’ll probably reach 10,000 yards within his first three throws of his seasons, and assuming he’s the starter, he’ll hit 100 touchdowns by mid-year at the latest. Still, if Gubrud gets hurt again (as he did this spring), the backups appear qualified.

James Snook-USA TODAY Sports

Dezmon Patmon

The QB of choice will have one hell of a receiving corps at his disposal. Six players were targeted at least 66 times last season, and the only one who doesn’t return is running back James Williams. (Williams’ backup, Max Borghi, was also a member of the 66-Plus Club.)

In Tay Martin, Borghi, and inside receiver Jamire Calvin, Wazzu boasts a nice set of efficiency guys. In Easop Winston Jr. and Dezmon Patmon, however, they’ve got the kind of proven vertical threats that make Leach’s air raid attack particularly difficult to stop. This is an efficiency-first attack in the same way that the triple option is, which means that containment and strong tackling are just about your only ways to get off the field. But when Wazzu is gashing you with big plays, too, there’s really no defensive solution beyond “hope desperately that you can get pressure on the QB quickly.”

Almost no one is able to do that, either. Wazzu ranked first in the nation in sack rate allowed, a paltry 1.9 percent. Even on blitz downs (second-and-super-long, third-and-5 or more), opponents only dragged Minshew down for a loss 4.1 percent of the time (11th in FBS).

Granted, all-conference left tackle Andre Dillard is gone, a first-round pick of the Philadelphia Eagles. Still, right tackle Abraham Lucas returns after posting second-team all-conference honors as a freshman, and three other starters are back, too. The quick-passing nature of the offense keeps the QB’s jersey pretty clean, anyway, and a good line makes that job twice as hard.

Defense

When Leach hired Grinch, the defense’s improvement was remarkably linear. The Cougs improved from 97th to 77th in Def. S&P+ in 2015, then to 60th in 2016 and 30th in 2017. WSU’s 2017 offense was far less consistent than normal because of QB injuries and another young receiving corps, but the defense picked up the slack, and the Cougs won nine games all the same.

Grinch left to become Ohio State co-coordinator after 2017, however, and Tracy Claeys’ first year as his replacement was marked by inconsistency. The good moments were still excellent — the Cougs held five opponents to 20 or fewer points (and, not surprisingly, went 5-0 in those games). But they gave up 7.3 yards per play and a 48 percent success rate in their two losses, and they got gashed by Oregon State (37 points, 6.5 yards per play), Stanford (38 points, 6.7 yards per play), and Iowa State (only 26 points, but 7.8 yards per play) as well.

The pass defense was strong — 33rd in passing marginal efficiency, first in passing downs sack rate (if you fell behind the chains, your quarterback was getting hit) — but if you were decent at running the football, you didn’t have to pass. Wazzu was 115th in rushing marginal efficiency, and once you crossed into the red zone, the Cougs had no answers: they were 122nd in success rate between the 11 and 20 and 107th inside the 10.

Photo by Tim Warner/Getty Images

Willie Taylor III

Continuity on the two-deep is at least decent this year. Seniors only made 38 percent of last year’s tackles, and of the 11 players to make at least 20 tackles, seven return. Plus, of the six players to record at least three sacks (Claeys’ pass rush was as diverse as it was effective), four are back: end Will Rodgers III and linebackers Dominick Silvels, Willie Taylor III, and Jahad Woods. None of them are seniors; Wazzu will be defined by its pass rush for a while.

Of course, it might still be defined by poor run defense, too. Rodgers and end Nnamdi Oguayo return up front (so does sophomore Misiona Aiolupotea-Pei, who had 2.5 sacks among his 6.5 tackles), but last year’s top two defensive tackles do not. Only a couple of likely contributors weigh in over 280 pounds, and none topped 300 as of their latest weigh-in (290-pound sophomore Jesus Echevarria came the closest). For that matter, none of the major linebackers top 235. This is a speedy but light unit.

Soobum Im-USA TODAY Sports

Jalen Thompson (34)

The secondary doesn’t have much size either, but that’s less of a concern. Veteran safeties Skyler Thomas and Jalen Thompson (combined: four tackles for loss, four INTs, 10 pass breakups) return, as does corner Marcus Strong (two TFLs, three INTs, five PBUs). But depth has thinned considerably. No other returnee logged more than 6.5 tackles. That probably tells you why Leach signed four JUCO DBs. A couple will need to contribute immediately.

Special Teams

For three years, Leach had maybe the most consistently awful special teams unit in the country. Wazzu ranked 120th or worse in Special Teams S&P+ each year from 2014-16 but hopped to 79th in 2017 and sustained its gains last year (74th). Place-kicker Blake Mazza was scattershot as a freshman (only 6-for-9 on field goals under 40 yards but 4-for-6 over 40), but punter Oscar Draguicevich III was excellent, and Travel Harris was decent in kick returns. They’re all back.

2019 outlook

2019 Schedule & Projection Factors

Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk Proj. Margin Win Probability 31-Aug New Mexico State 121 29.3 95% 7-Sep Northern Colorado NR 41.2 99% 13-Sep vs. Houston 73 8.6 69% 21-Sep UCLA 63 8.3 68% 28-Sep at Utah 17 -9.0 30% 12-Oct at Arizona State 49 0.5 51% 19-Oct Colorado 68 9.7 71% 26-Oct at Oregon 20 -7.4 33% 9-Nov at California 60 3.0 57% 16-Nov Stanford 32 1.3 53% 23-Nov Oregon State 105 20.8 89% 29-Nov at Washington 15 -11.3 26%

Projected S&P+ Rk 36 Proj. Off. / Def. Rk 20 / 71 Projected wins 7.4 Five-Year S&P+ Rk 5.7 (49) 2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 61 2018 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* 8 / 4.6 2018 TO Luck/Game +1.3 Returning Production (Off. / Def.) 61% (58%, 64%) 2018 Second-order wins (difference) 9.7 (1.3)

Primarily because of turnover at quarterback and defensive back, Wazzu’s four-year run of improvement is projected to come to an end. The Cougs are projected to slip slightly to 36th.

Yes, they were projected to slide last year and didn’t. Maybe they keep the streak going. Still, at 36th they’re projected favorites in nine of 12 games. Playing at Utah, Oregon, and Washington will likely cut short any hopes of winning the Pac-12 North, but there are still lots of wins on the table here.

There’s no telling where Leach’s odd mind will take him next offseason or the one after that. But in-season, he’s coaching as well as he ever has.

Team preview stats

All 2019 preview data to date.

[mybumpbirthandbeyond]

Progress

After my appointment with Lyndsey, I was so relieved to be doing proper rehab. I had a structure to what I was doing and was at last getting started. I say ‘at last’ - I was only 5 weeks postpartum so this was infinitely better than 4 months last time, but I was still impatient to get going.

My next virtual team consult was booked for the following week. In the week prior, I still recognised that my impatience hadn’t disappeared because I had started rehab properly. The exercises I was doing were ahead of where I thought I would start, but again, I wanted to do more. That may not come as a surprise!

I decided to test a few things. Antony and I had made a joke about pull-ups after my first virtual consult but when I look back on it, I realise that neither of us were joking. I had bought resistance bands to help this time so decided to test them out - what was the worst that could happen?

I had to attach all three to take my entire body weight but I managed and my husband and I agreed the doming wasn’t excessive and was no more than in a birddog. I did a few later that week but didn’t want to push my luck until I confessed to the team.

The next thing I tried was something that was a constant throughout my rehab the first time: a crunch with a double leg lift. Antony had me doing these the very first time I had a consult with both him and Gráinne. I was really weak then despite months of rehab and they felt impossible. I was definitely in a better position to try them out this time. I lifted my knees above me then extended my legs to protect my back. I was pleasantly surprised at how I was able to control the doming. It was a lot of effort but manageable.

I tried them a couple of times again before my consult but wasn’t able to control it as well so decided to leave them for the time being. I’m not far off so will probably be back to them again soon enough.

I knew I would be doing much more this time than in my previous team consult. I was now 6 weeks postpartum, not 2 and half. I knew the minute I mentioned what I had done, I’d be asked to show them.

We caught up on my appointment with Lyndsey and where I was at. I admitted I had been trying a bit more. I don’t think they were that surprised which shows how well they know by now. It’s a mark of how much they have empowered me with the knowledge and confidence to try things myself and just see, that I even considered doing over and above. The exercises we started on however, were two I hadn’t tried - Gráinne wanted me to do a rollback to see what level of control I had, and she wanted me to blow up a balloon. I had wondered how quickly we would reintroduce those after I avoided them throughout pregnancy on their advice. It just so happened I had new balloons in the housefrom a 2nd and 60th birthday...

I was quite surprised when I managed to successfully blow one up on my first attempt (albeit I had to take numerous breaths to do so). They were all really happy with the reaction at my tummy. The fact it was easier this time 6 weeks postpartum compared to 8 months last time was a huge deal for me.

I thought that was it and we would move on but Antony asked if he could ask a rude question. I told him to go ahead. “Were you trying your hardest?” I didn’t know how to react to that. My instinct is I always try my hardest so that caught me off guard. I told him I thought I was but I’d do it again if he thought I hadn’t. Without realising, Antony was right when he said “I think you’re holding back a bit because there was uncertainty but now you know you can, do it again.”

I took a new balloon and did it again. They all agreed it was different - my chest moved more and they could hear the air going in. My tummy behaved the same however. I joked that I don’t like the implication I wasn’t trying hard so it pushed me on. Turns out I’m pretty transparent 😂

No sooner had I managed that then it happened again. I managed a rollback further than I thought but resorted to flopping down the last wee bit. Gráinne had said I was able to control it in a much better range than expected. I thought I had ticked the box when Antony said I’d like you to do it again but just make it all the way down controlling it. I just burst out laughing 🤣 he’s hard task master (which is fine by me 😊) but he told me he thought I could do it. I was still laughing when I tried the first time so had to restart. I was just off the floor when I lost the control so I did improve.

I was then asked to rollback into a sit-up using 5kg. I was to roll back holding the weight out in front, touch the floor behind my head then throw it out in front and sit up. I managed but did it lightning quick, almost as if I thought about it I wouldn’t be able to. There was no way anybody saw anything I did it so fast so I started again. I managed it no problem. Then once again, Antony stepped it up - I was to do it without the weight, as the weight makes it easier. When I managed it i probably fully didn’t realise until watching it later how much I had achieved in such a short space of time. I achieved things that if I was told what I would be doing before I did them, I would think were unlikely. I was once again struck by how well my physios know me - they know what buttons to press to make me excel in ways I didn’t or wouldn’t think possible.

When we discussed it, I told them something I had realised during rehab last time - the less I think about things; the less I worry about breathing, doming and pressure; the more I achieve and the better I do it. Thinking about all of these things limits my capabilities. Don’t get me wrong, it’s important to monitor and control, but not to the point that impedes my ability to try things or succeed.

Halfway through, Antony asked if I wanted to show them the chin-up. Alex and I laughed - I knew it was coming so I had already prepared. Once again, after I demonstrated what I had been doing, the bar was raised again. Antony told me to make it harder by ensuring I was in fully hang - by bending my knee in the bands I would be at full extension and have to pull for longer and harder to get myself up. I managed it and they all said my tummy actually looked better - I was recruiting more of my abdominal wall.

When I had finished they asked if there was anything else ‘sneaky’ I had been doing? The answer was (truthfully) no. Antony dropped a tentative mention of kettlebell swings and asked if i wanted to try them. I didn’t hesitate to say yes. When I watched it back I started laughing - I literally am so easy to manipulate. Antony knew if he dangled the carrot I would bite his hand off. Like I said - they know the buttons to press 🤷🏽‍♀️

I told them I wouldn’t be going for American swings the first time, I would just see how I got on. Funny thing is, I was only 20/30 degrees off it once I did it 😂🙈 We played around with the breath. There was no change at the tummy but I could perform better by holding my breath. Although that’s not conducive to performing well every time, especially repeatedly, I knew it was something I always did with the harder exercises initially until I conditioned to a point where I didn’t have to. I always did it with planks, press-ups and sit-ups. It’s okay for now but I won’t get many repetitions out of doing it that way.

At the end of the consult we discussed my goals. Three in total:

A strict chin-up/pull-up (depending on my preferred grip - or both as Antony joked 😅) eventually aiming for 5x reps.

Superman/power press - it’s an explosive movement that will require a helluva lot of strength but lucky Alex can do it so he can help 😏

Headstand into push up - easily the most challenging but rewarding if I achieve it.

We worked backwards so I have steps to achieve to get there that I can start working on now. If I can achieve them, they will define my rehab and demonstrate just how strong and functional you can be with a significant diastasis. I’m not in the same league as Lisa Marie Ryan in terms of strength, athleticism and ability and I am no cross- fitter but she is a huge inspiration to me. If I can end up even half as strong as she was with her diastasis prior to my surgery, then I’ll be delighted.

At the end, as always, my physios reiterated their support. It doesn’t get any less humbling every time I hear it nor does it get any easier to express the extent of my gratitude. Antony told me they would support me if I wanted to take a break which I tried my best not to smile at. He also said they would support me if I was feeling good and did slightly over what i usually would. I kept trying to keep a straight face but couldn’t any longer. I just laughed. I am more likely to do the opposite of take a break which they already know.

I did promise to train smarter this time so sticking to the 3-4 times a week....for now anyway! If I feel I can do more down the line I probably will, just maybe not all exercises 6 times a week 😂🙈 The key thing is I know my own limits. I know the limits of my determination and motivation (borderline limitless but still!) and I know the limits of my capabilities. I have a very good awareness and understanding of my body. Besides, I’m always honest so it’s not as if I’ll hide it. Plus my husband does a good enough job for everybody keeping me in check 🙄😂🙈

What I will say is, not everyone will be capable of what I am and likewise I won’t be capable of what others will be capable of. Everything about this is individual: the presentation of the DRA; the rehab; the body’s ability to improve function and aesthetics, everything. I have shared what I can do but I’ve also shared what I can’t. There may be those thinking I shouldn’t be doing what I’m doing at this stage and that’s fine, that’s their opinion. However I know my limits as I said, as do my physios, and I consult with them on all of this. That might be after I’ve tried something myself, but I still get their opinion as it matters to me and I respect them all so highly. For those who think they couldn’t possibly do what I’m doing now that’s fine; you need to remember that this isn’t my first rodeo. I conditioned and built up my strength so well the first time (much to my surprise) that this will be easier for me or I will be capable of more this time and probably quicker as a result. That doesn’t mean I’m not still trying to find my feet - the process is very different this time so I’m still learning as I go. There are really no comparisons to be made - everyone is different, just like every physio practises differently. There’s not necessarily a right or wrong way, there’s just the best way for you.

For me personally, the bottom line is, that there are really no limits to what I can achieve if I work hard enough and give myself time. Whereas before I only saw limits to begin with, this time the opposite is true and I’m seeing the possibilities. That alone is progress, and progress in my mindset and mentality is more powerful than any progress I can make physically.

“Progress is impossible without change and those who cannot change their minds, cannot change anything.“

[robertsoncheney-blog]

Happy Easter everybody! Whatever you have planned, we hope it’s a good a one! We have a big weekend celebrating our Dad’s 60th birthday with lots of family and friends (happy birthday Dad!)... Anyway, our Easter sale is now live, so if there’s something that you’ve had your eye on, now is the time to get it!

[scrawnydutchman]

In Defense of Religion (and Spirituality in General)

It seems superfluous to outright state the obvious as a beginning of this post, but Religion has always been a taboo subject, especially in modern times. Many highly respected writers and social commentators, not the least of which being Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Penn Jillette and the late George Carlin, have contributed to shifting people’s perception of being faithful to what many other authors have penned as the rising age of Atheism. None of these men are the originators of course, there are many other philosophers from earlier times who could be considered responsible for that, first example coming to mind being Friedrich Nietzsche, famous for coining the phrase “God is dead and we have killed him.” Of course it doesn’t help that people are very polarized in our day and age, not just with faith but in politics as well. It just seems like we’re getting more and more divided all the time. Contrary to what we all believe however, this division isn’t a result of us being intolerant of just how different we are. In truth it’s a result of us being more alike then we would care to admit. Many like to attribute violent and extreme behavior to a corrupt or poorly established doctrine as a means to reinforce their own stance to themselves, but in my honest to God perception of the whole thing it just seems like everybody is suffering from the same hypocrisies and negative effects of confirmation bias and they fail to even realize it.

Now, as the reader has likely gathered from the title, this post will be coming to the defense of religion, but before doing so I want to make one thing perfectly clear; this is not meant to convert you. If you’re a proud Atheist or Muslim or Christian or Buddhist or whatever you identify with, I hope you find happiness and solace in the path you’ve chosen, and if not may you find it wherever else you look. What this post IS meant to do is address commonly made points for the fallacies within their logic, mainly points Anti-theists make against believing in God, so they’ll see a bit more of themselves in people they disagree with and perhaps have an easier time allowing people to be who they want to be. Because while I don’t want to push any opinion on which faith is true on you, the stance I DO uphold without shame is that any thought provoking discussion for the way the universe works is worth indulging, to engage with others and to consider things one may not have considered otherwise. The points I will address and counter are as follows:

1. Religion is overly violent and encourages prejudice and hatred.

2. Religion is non-progressive, holding back scientific research as well as social and political issues.

3. What reason to people have for believing in God anyway?

1A. I will concede that faith has an ugly history behind it. One need look no further then the Crusades, Galileo, and the recent ISIS attacks to confirm this. It’s unfortunate that people use their worldviews which ironically preach peace and kindness towards fellow man to such horrid ends as such. However, contrary to what many may believe, this justification of negative action doesn’t come from a refusal to rationalize. It actually comes from the opposite; rationalizing violent impulse through teachings of scripture to the point of practically having internal debate with one self to fulfill these actions without harming one’s conscience. Basically it’s researching not for the sake of learning the truth, but for the sake of proving that you are right. This is what’s known as confirmation bias: You’ll research so long as you can find the answers you’re looking for regardless of whether they’re credible or not, and then dismiss any counter evidence brought forward to you either entirely or you’ll provide some half hazard counter argument. It’s why there are people in the world who think vaccines cause Autism; they’ll keep digging until they find something that agrees with them.

Non religious based pieces of literature can provoke the same violent responses in unforeseeable ways too. The murderer of John Lennon claimed that the statement he was making in Lennon’s murder was J.D. Salingers Catcher In the Rye. Where in the book about an adolescent Holden Caulfield having a mental breakdown about the pressures of growing up condone murder? I have no idea. But surely because the novel compelled Mark Chapman to shoot John Lennon it ought to be banned so that nobody is ever influenced like that again, right? Is this information to be locked away forever because of an unfortunate tale it is tied with? Many have thought so, but I was still able to read it in high school and I turned out fine, if only a little opinionated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_David_Chapman

Some of the works of the founding fathers of Atheism and Nihilism have similar stories behind them. Enter the German Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, previously noted for the phrase “God is dead and we have killed him” as a symbol for a rising age in which man no longer needs the alleged illusion of God to encourage righteous behavior. Beyond that, another famous theory of Nietzsche that has been carried on into our pop culture is the idea of the Ubermensch, roughly translated into English as the “Superman”. Essentially Nietzsche spoke of a superior man among men who was psychologically superior in many ways. One who took pride in his greatness, one that made great breakthroughs, one that will be misunderstood and thus held back against the masses and one that took living life to the fullest into his own hands. One such man would be a leader among a herd of naturally inferior people and make innovations propelling society forward. Some regimes of later centuries took this idea of a superman very seriously, but perhaps not in a way Nietzsche may have anticipated.

Nietzsche’s sister, Elizabeth, reedited his works so as to be integrated into Fascist Ideology. The Ubermensch essentially went from meaning one who was gifted and inherently great in ways not achievable by normal people, to meaning an entire race of superior people who had every right to bear all races below them in chains. This is how Nietzsche became something of a hero to the Third Reich. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuQzE2YYPNE (skip to 34:40)

Not only that, but he was also the personal hero of former Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, who adopted Nietzsche’s mentality of the superman and applied it to his own protest against religious belief, as Denis Mack Smith describes, “ In Nietzsche he found justification for his crusade against the Christian virtues of humility, resignation, charity, and goodness”. Mussolini was gifted the complete works of Nietzsche on his 60th birthday by Adolf Hitler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Religious_views section 7.1: Atheism and Anti-Clericalism.

I bring this all up merely to demonstrate that, while Atheism cannot be defined as a religion and is rather the absence of one, it is still built on a principle one must abide by in order to be considered an atheist; that being, the disbelief in God until he is undeniably been proven to exist. And it also has founding fathers that propel it into the mainstream with texts and documents influencing our current culture and it’s ideals such as Nietzsche. But as just discussed, such documentation can and has been reused to rationalize ill intent and hatred towards those who are different, not unlike how the Bible and the Quran have been interpreted.. So my question to atheists is:

If it isn’t considered fair to judge followers and readers of Nietzsche based on the actions of the Nazi’s or Mussolini or other negative examples of the lack of faith including Stalin, why then is it fair to judge all modern day Christians or Muslims based on the negative examples that they have? 

Fact of the matter is, no ideology is perfect because no single person was ever perfect, Ubermensch or otherwise. Anyone can take a simple principle in belief and warp it for malicious intent. “These Christians are slowing down our progression with their bogus beliefs. We ought to ostracize them and take them down”. The truth is, some people are malicious and power hungry and will find whatever justification they need for their actions; it really doesn’t matter where that justification comes from. And it’s no real service to say “they aren’t real Christians” or “they aren’t real Feminists”. They aren’t products of misunderstanding the source, they are the embodiment of the sources fundamental flaws. Atheism is not immune to this phenomenon; the 20th century is proof of that. But that said, every ideology is capable of inhibiting positive examples to society as well. For every King Henry the 8th there’s an Oscar Romero, for every Benito Mussolini there’s a Stephen Hawking, for every Osama Bin Laden there’s a Muhammad Ali.

2A. Religion is also often credited for being non progressive. Holding back scientific advancement, denying what has been proven to be fact or at the very least more securely rooted in evidence then anything the church preaches, and holding back the civil rights of people such as Homosexuals on the merits of a book they are at no obligation to follow in the first place. Once again, I concede that faith has an ugly history. Galileo was unfairly prosecuted for proving the earth is not in fact in the center of the milky way, and many people are of the opinion that evolution is a fallacy, the earth is only a few thousand years old and it is even flat. But is it fair to say religion has made NO contributions to the advancement of science, therefore isn’t compatible with it? Not necessarily true.

For starters, let’s look at one of the most widely accepted theories for the beginning of the universe among Atheists and otherwise: The Big Bang. The theory that at one point there was nothing. All there ever was was a focal point of extremely high density and temperature from which the universe expanded and continued to expand. This theory was originated by Belgian scientist Georges Lemaitre, in what he referred to as a “Cosmic Egg”. He was a professor of physics, and astronomer . .  .. and a roman catholic priest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhLQ_b3bKdI

Lemaitre’s theory has since then been expanded on and praised as a monumental innovation of modern science, even prompting Albert Einstein to say  "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." I find it very ironic how the modern view of religion is so often associated as anti-science when one of the most prominent theories of our time originated from a holy man.

There are other examples of highly influential religious scientists such as Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Pascal, just to name a few. But rather then go on that long tangent my only point was that while religion can unfortunately be used as a means to justify dismissal of what may be proven to be verifiable fact, therefore reaffirming confirmation bias, it’s not like one is incapable of indulging in scientific advancement as WELL as spirituality simultaneously. One does not necessarily have to compromise one for the other. The same goes for being an activist on social issues such as the rights of Homosexuals. Bishop Desmond Tutu has been a prominent activist for such issues for years, and was awarded several awards including the nobel peace prize in 1984

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu

One does not need to compromise his faith to be an advocate for rights and for advancement. In fact, I would argue that advancement can only truly happen by considering all possibilities and allowing people the opportunity to go about those possibilities how they choose. Which brings me to my final counter.

3A. So why even believe in God in the first place? I’ll allow any believer to answer for themselves, but as of this last point it’s going to solely be an opinion piece and nothing more. The way I see it is, there is a 50/50 chance God exists. Either he does or he doesn’t. So as long as this is the most we know, until further notice we might as well just choose which ever thesis suits us best. For myself, I’m fascinated and intrigued by nearly every world religion and philosophy I come across, namely Hinduism, because it promotes the idea of God being everywhere and coming to everyone with infinite manifestations, thus any pursuit for spirituality and higher understanding is a noble one (I don’t necessarily agree that’s 100 percent true in every case but I appreciate the open minded nature of it). I often research other faiths and take my favorite parts of them and apply them to my own life. Some call that cherry picking, which it is, but I don’t consider that a bad thing. Ultimately nobody on planet earth thinks exactly the same way. There are as many worldviews as there are people, and almost as many versions of God. The more we encourage open discussion and freedom to expression between each other, the closer we will become, the more enlightened we will be and, afterlife or no afterlife, we will have lived our time on earth to the very fullest. 

I think of it as a giant game of roulette; only one round, you gotta bet all your chips. Everybody’s got their “lucky number” to which they abide by because of a long history of winning with that number, and while they may technically only have a 1 in 38 chance of winning just like everyone else . . . I can’t deny that’s still a chance. Myself, I prefer to divide my chips across the board and dabble in a little bit of everything, just to play the game safe. Whatever I get in return is good enough for me.

I was inspired to write this up not because I’m an expert, because in truth I’m not. I’ll admit I’m very biased myself. But if I can encourage open discussion, encouragement to understand and the contentment of people choosing what’s right for them, I’ll take the risk of embarrassing myself. My life has been touched very positively with religion. My mother is a devout catholic and she’s one of the strongest and most compassionate people I know in the whole world. My ex was a Buddhist who took it up during one of the hardest moments of her life and it helped her push through. There’s no way in hell I’m invalidating that. God or no God, afterlife or no afterlife, you can’t argue with results. So by all means; go out and hug a Muslim. Give a Christian a high five, take a Mormon out to lunch, meditate with a Buddhist, and be the nicest and most pleasant religious friend your atheist buddy ever had. If we do right by ourselves and we do right by each other, there would be no need for a heaven . . we’d already be there.

(Last line shamelessly ripped off from the Simpsons).

[gigsoupmusic]

Darius Brubeck Quartet - 60th Anniversary Of Time Out. Jazz Café, London (14/12/19)

On the 14th of December, 60 years ago to the day, Dave Brubeck released one of the greatest collections of compositions of all time. The 7-track Time Out is an exploration of metric complexity, with each track taking on an unfamiliar time signature and turning it into a work of accessible, melodic genius. With Paul Desmond on saxophone and Brubeck himself on piano, the album wasn’t an amateur affair. Tonight, London’s iconic Jazz Café plays host to Brubeck’ son, Darius, and his own quartet. They’re playing through Time Out from start to finish, honouring the beautiful melodies and inspired chord sequences, while each member puts their own spin on the improvised sections. The second half of the show explores Darius’ own Live In Poland, showing off his own compositional skill and performance ability. It doesn’t match that of his father (maybe the two sets should have swapped in their order...) but that wasn’t the focus of this evening anyway. Kicking off with the immortal ‘Blue Rondo A La Turk’ the tightness of this band comes through in full force. Brubeck is able to play the aggressive main 9/8 pattern just as well as the relaxed swung pattern over which the solos come. On saxophone is Dave O’Higgins, world renowned for his playing ability. While he hits every note, his soloing was lacking in some of the soul Paul Desmond was able to inject 60 years ago. ‘Not many inherit a hit’, Brubeck says of the album after the opening track concludes.

‘Strange Meadow Lark’ and ‘Three To Get Ready’ push things even further forward, with the delicate birdsong inspiration of the former being explained by Brubeck before starting the track. His own improvisation is extraordinarily like his fathers, whether this came naturally or he adds it in to appease fans and the origins of the tracks it’s hard to tell, but the block chords that bounce with syncopation above the harmonic patterns are reminiscent of an age of jazz that barely even exists these days. The bass solo in the second number was the highlight of the show so far, though, with young British bassist Matt Ridley exploring the full range of his instrument. Not letting the audience go without interesting facts for a single second, Brubeck introduces ‘Kathy’s Waltz’ by explaining how his sister (Cathy) had her name spelt wrong on the album sleeve and it was never changed. The band perfect the polymeter that comes towards the end of the track, creating a huge sound for an acoustic four-piece, channelling the days of Dave himself. While ‘Everybody’s Jumpin’’ and ‘Pick Up Sticks’ are arguably the weakest point of a phenomenal album, their relaxed bounce makes the Jazz Café dance. ‘Take Five’ should have been a little earlier in the setlist if the album’s original track-list is anything to go by, but Darius cleverly positions it towards the end, using the biggest selling jazz single of all time as an encore of sorts. Wesley Gibbens’ drum solo is masterful, using his tiny kit to its fullest potential, and pushing the limits of 5/4 with his rhythmic playing. O’Higgins fares much better on this track, injecting a breathy journey through this iconic Paul Desmond melody.

As mentioned above, the second half of the show was less impressive. While expertly performed, the pieces were far less familiar and at times lacking in the compositional brilliance of Brubeck. That said, the delightfully happy and positive Darius maintained an impressive hold over his wonderful band, making sure that classic jazz remains relevant in the modern era. Considering the amount of young people in the audience tonight, the 60 years since Time Out was released obviously didn’t allow it to age a day. Read the full article

[gigsoupmusic]

Darius Brubeck Quartet - 60th Anniversary Of Time Out. Jazz Café, London (14/12/19)

On the 14th of December, 60 years ago to the day, Dave Brubeck released one of the greatest collections of compositions of all time. The 7-track Time Out is an exploration of metric complexity, with each track taking on an unfamiliar time signature and turning it into a work of accessible, melodic genius. With Paul Desmond on saxophone and Brubeck himself on piano, the album wasn’t an amateur affair. Tonight, London’s iconic Jazz Café plays host to Brubeck’ son, Darius, and his own quartet. They’re playing through Time Out from start to finish, honouring the beautiful melodies and inspired chord sequences, while each member puts their own spin on the improvised sections. The second half of the show explores Darius’ own Live In Poland, showing off his own compositional skill and performance ability. It doesn’t match that of his father (maybe the two sets should have swapped in their order...) but that wasn’t the focus of this evening anyway. Kicking off with the immortal ‘Blue Rondo A La Turk’ the tightness of this band comes through in full force. Brubeck is able to play the aggressive main 9/8 pattern just as well as the relaxed swung pattern over which the solos come. On saxophone is Dave O’Higgins, world renowned for his playing ability. While he hits every note, his soloing was lacking in some of the soul Paul Desmond was able to inject 60 years ago. ‘Not many inherit a hit’, Brubeck says of the album after the opening track concludes.

‘Strange Meadow Lark’ and ‘Three To Get Ready’ push things even further forward, with the delicate birdsong inspiration of the former being explained by Brubeck before starting the track. His own improvisation is extraordinarily like his fathers, whether this came naturally or he adds it in to appease fans and the origins of the tracks it’s hard to tell, but the block chords that bounce with syncopation above the harmonic patterns are reminiscent of an age of jazz that barely even exists these days. The bass solo in the second number was the highlight of the show so far, though, with young British bassist Matt Ridley exploring the full range of his instrument. Not letting the audience go without interesting facts for a single second, Brubeck introduces ‘Kathy’s Waltz’ by explaining how his sister (Cathy) had her name spelt wrong on the album sleeve and it was never changed. The band perfect the polymeter that comes towards the end of the track, creating a huge sound for an acoustic four-piece, channelling the days of Dave himself. While ‘Everybody’s Jumpin’’ and ‘Pick Up Sticks’ are arguably the weakest point of a phenomenal album, their relaxed bounce makes the Jazz Café dance. ‘Take Five’ should have been a little earlier in the setlist if the album’s original track-list is anything to go by, but Darius cleverly positions it towards the end, using the biggest selling jazz single of all time as an encore of sorts. Wesley Gibbens’ drum solo is masterful, using his tiny kit to its fullest potential, and pushing the limits of 5/4 with his rhythmic playing. O’Higgins fares much better on this track, injecting a breathy journey through this iconic Paul Desmond melody.

As mentioned above, the second half of the show was less impressive. While expertly performed, the pieces were far less familiar and at times lacking in the compositional brilliance of Brubeck. That said, the delightfully happy and positive Darius maintained an impressive hold over his wonderful band, making sure that classic jazz remains relevant in the modern era. Considering the amount of young people in the audience tonight, the 60 years since Time Out was released obviously didn’t allow it to age a day. Read the full article