#ted/rebecca with one notable exception

[waywardted]

Tagged by @talldecafcappuccino and @mrgaretcarter! Thank you friends 🫶 Seen a lot of these on my dash but tagging @cowherderess @broadwayfreak5357 @boglady cause I don't think I've seen theirs........ 💕

Rules: Pick a bunch of your WIPs and summarize them as badly as possible, then ask your followers to vote on which one they’d be most likely to read. Multiple/all/none options are completely optional.

[leupagus]

So I'm sure there's different versions of this

But the one my cantor* told us when we were in Sunday School was this one:

Two rich men go to a cloth merchant's shop. This merchant is known for having beautiful silks, even though he has but a small humble store in the outskirts of town — so small that his infant son is sleeping on one of the chests!

These rich men want to buy these silks, so they demand to see them at once.

The merchant says, "I am sorry, they are not for sale today. Come back tomorrow and I would be happy to show them to you."

The rich men, knowing that this merchant is a Jew, think "ah-hah, he wants more money!" So they offer him a tremendous sum.

"I am sorry, they are not for sale today. Come back tomorrow, good sirs."

The rich men are puzzled, but they double their price. Quadruple it. Anything this merchant wants, they can give him.

"I am sorry, they are not for sale today. Come back tomorrow, if you please."

So, the rich men leave, annoyed, but they present themselves the very next day and sure enough, the merchant goes to a chest and pulls out the most beautiful silks that these rich men have ever seen. And when they offer to pay, he will only accept the price that he himself has deemed fair — many times less than even the first offer these rich men made.

"But why would you not give us these silks yesterday?" they ask, happy but baffled as they (or more probably their servants, but the cantor didn't get into that) pack up the silks to leave.

Just then, the merchant's wife comes in from the back, carrying their infant son. The merchant smiles and says, "Because my child was sleeping on that chest, and I did not wish to disturb his slumber. His peace is more precious to me than all the money you, good sirs, could ever provide."

[itsclydebitches]

I'm preparing myself for the personal disappointment of Ted going back home to Kansas (even though I don't believe that's his home anymore) and that Trent will see him off in a ruby slippers shirt, especially since Lance has worn one before and we now know a lot of Trent's shirts are coming from his closet:

But in writing another meta I've been thinking a lot about Ted Lasso's clothing, particularly how it is used to connect with others and showcase growth. Sometimes that attempt is a failure and the growth is a detriment to the character, such as Nate trying to copy Roy's all black suit, and sometimes it's a success and the growth is something to celebrate, like Roy finding a compromise between his and Phoebe's tastes with his dark-colored, tie-die t-shirt. Beyond the issue that I don't want Ted to go back to Kansas at all (not unless the intention is to have him realize that Richmond is his true home now), a Dorothy shirt would fall flat for me because there's no in-universe connection to Ted. We as the audience understand the allusion because we've been picking up on hints since Season 1: Ted makes a quip about not being in Kansas anymore, he holds high scores on a Wizard of Oz pinball machine, he's surrounded by other allusions such as an emotionless man in need of a heart (Roy), a scared lion who rejects being a panda (Rebecca), and the comedic, presumed idiot who does in fact have a brain (Jamie). But all of that exists on an analytical level. In-world, Ted hasn't identified with Dorothy and what few connections there are -- such as that acknowledgement that he feels out of his depth in a new world -- are no longer accurate three seasons later, after a hell of a lot of growth. Unlike the suit and the shirts that exist overtly on screen as a way to say, "These characters are sharing a connection," Trent talking to Ted in a Dorothy shirt would feel too removed from textual!Ted and textual!Trent to have the same impact. This shirt totally sums up his story!... provided you've done the work to interpret all the easily missed hints and ignored the ways in which a Wizard of Oz ending would (imo) be a regression for Ted.

With an acknowledgment that I'm playing with all this through the assumption that Trent's shirt will have something to do with Ted, rather than us just getting an Overtly Queer shirt to show that Trent has fully embraced who he is, I've been hemming and hawing over what I'd give him instead. In some ways, Ted is notable for his lack of distinct fashion. He wears Richmond gear 70% of the time and the rest is plain colored long-sleeved shirts and collared shirts with polos. It's a distinctly Ted look to be sure (passionate and athletic vs. soft, comfortable, and mildly professional while still feeling approachable), but there's less material to work with than, say, Keeley's vibrate, quirky wardrobe; or Rebecca's preference towards outfits that emphasize her power as a kind of shield: wealth, beauty, her height; or -- of course -- Trent's move from buttoned-up journalist to queer bracelet, queer mug, queer style icon t-shirts. I can't think of anything Trent could wear off the top of my head that would a) be within his "vibe" and b) scream "I'M DECLARING MY SUPPORT AND/OR ROMANTIC LOVE FOR TED FUCKING LASSO."

Except, of course, for a "BELIEVE" shirt.

While I love and fully agree with Ted's speech about how belief needs to come from within and, thus, their sign is not actually necessary, a part of me is still disappointed that "BELIEVE" is no longer a visual part of the club. I'd be more willing to accept letting it go if we hadn't seen that Ted himself still relies on those visual reminders. Not only does he choose to put the sign up in the first place rather than simply telling the boys to believe in themselves, but back when Nate was doubting their chances in Ted's apartment, Ted sprints to his bathroom to retrieve one of mini signs he, obviously, keeps on hand and presumably sees every morning, soon as he gets up. It's important to him, not just the message, but the physicality of the reminder itself, so I've been expecting/hoping for the message to return in a new form by the end of the season.

Granted, that little moment was a while ago and it's possible that the writers didn't realize the implications it would have when Ted later ripped up the sign. However, another reason why I don't think my expectation is completely hopeless is because of the Season 3 promo, wherein all the Richmond family make their own BELIEVE signs. Forgetting a small gag back in Season 1 or 2 is understandable, but the promotion for the latest season? Why in the world would our advertising emphasize -- and celebrate! -- all the characters creating signs of their own if the message was meant to be, "Let the sign go. It's no longer needed"?

We didn't get this scene in the show proper, but it still speaks volumes that they filmed a moment where every character puts their own spin on the BELIEVE sign, using it to highlight their personality. Then, we end with a shot of Ted's touched approval as he talks about feeling seen.

Chronologically, Trent would have been around for all this. There's no need for the team to make their own signs until they realize the original has been torn and, obviously, Trent had become a part of the family by then. He's the one who discovered how the sign was torn in the first place. So if we read the promo as canonical, even if it didn't end up in an episode, why wouldn't Trent have joined in with everyone else? Thing is, he doesn't have a locker to hang a sign on, or even an office to put it in, and given that he's worn the same two bracelets and consistently used the same mug, there's really only one way that Trent shows his personality:

Shirts.

Some of which are notably brightly colored with blocky text referencing American-style learning.

I don't want Trent to walk into the finale with a Dorothy shirt whose importance only exists on a subtexual level and heralds Ted leaving the actual home he's worked to build. I want Trent to strut out in a bright yellow shirt with BELIEVE across the front, announcing to the world that, yes, he believes in the Lasso Way. Give me the implication that he had this made when everyone was personalizing their signs. Give me a fully confident "dork" who's willing to excitedly proclaim his love and support without fear of censor. Give me a BELIEVE reminder that's now tailored to the individual and can be worn or safely tucked away as needed. Give me the possibility (because it's not gonna be canon😭) that Trent is in love with Ted and he's going to display that in the most overt but-not-actually-saying-it way possible.

He sees Ted and he loves what he sees.

Dorothy and her allusion don't exist in the textual show proper and they're definitely not connected to Trent's relationship with Ted. What is though? The very first words Trent said about Ted that weren't an insult, accusation, snide remark, or disbelieving question:

"I can't help but root for him."

What better way to take Trent full circle than to let him literally wear his heart on his sleeve, shouting in bright colors and with a noticeable vibe that yes, he does believe in Ted Lasso.

[softtransbf]

2, 5, & 7 ~ rebeccaselfships

maybe i shouldn't have reblogged two numbered ask games so close together lol

i'll assume it's the fob one and answer about trent ^_^

2 has already been answered

5: "Headfirst Slide into Cooperstown on a Bad Bet" - How did others react to you and your f/o being together? Was there any that were notable reactions from certain people, either because they were positive or negative or something else entirely?

It definitely shocked the team (except Colin, bc he wingmanned us together in the first place), partially because none of them knew Trent is gay.

But let's be honest, a 20 year age gap is gonna raise some eyebrows no matter what.

Keeley was great, reminding everyone of the popularity of DILFs (backed up by Jamie bringing up MILFs), and while Sam didn't admit to having dated Rebecca, he also chimed in saying that we're both adults and it's a totally normal thing.

Ted, bless his heart, was soooo out of his depth lmao but once he wrapped his head around a gay couple with such a big age gap, he sincerely congratulated us both.

When we told Trent's daughter, once I reassured her that I was in no way going to replace her mom and she absolutely wouldn't need to call me dad, she was happy for us, too. Trent's ex-wife had some Words, but again, reassurances that while I like their daughter a lot, a parental role is the farthest thing from my mind helped smooth that over.

7: "(Coffee's for Closers)" - Out of the two of you, who’s more prepared for the unexpected? Was there ever a time this was most apparent?

Definitely him, as evidenced right off the bat. Neither of us expected to make a connection the night we met, and while I panicked, ran, and tried to forget about him, he took it in stride, thought about what it is he really wanted, and then made plans accordingly.

My gut instinct is always to panic and run, and years of being a journalist have made him very good at both making plans and adjusting them on the fly as needed.

[kalinara]

I’ve mentioned this before, but one of the things that’s really notable about “Beard After Hours” or really Season 2 as a whole is how it spun my perception of the Beard/Ted dynamic on its ear.

There’s a great post going on about how no one told Jamie that Rebecca, rather than Ted, traded him away.  And folks made an interesting point that we don’t know how much BEARD knows about Rebecca’s plans or intentions.

It occurs to me that in season one, even by the end, I’d always had the assumption that Beard did know.  I figured that Ted had told him.  Beard’s the mysterious and stoic guy, Ted’s the talkative and emotional guy.  Of COURSE, Ted must have told him.

But...when would he have told him?  If we look at the timeline for episode 9, we can see that there really isn’t much time for that: we have Rebecca’s confession, then Beard (and Nate) avoiding Ted because he won’t bench Roy, then the disastrous pub fight...”fight” probably is the wrong word there because that implies two sides to an argument instead of what actually happened: which was an explosion in which Ted didn’t say a word in his own defense.

So he wouldn’t have said it in that episode.  He might have said it later.  Maybe.  But we know how Ted loves to talk about things that hurt.  And we know how Ted loves to throw other people under the bus.  (Enough Chandler Binging, right?)

The interesting thing about Season Two, with regard to these two, is that things seem to be the reverse of what I assumed.

As early as Goodbye Earl, we see that there are some pretty big gaps in what Beard knows about Ted.  He was surprised by Ted’s animosity toward therapists, didn’t appear to know about the couples counseling with Michelle, and didn’t know the story about why Ted prefers Follow You Down to the objectively better Hey, Jealousy.

Those are little things.  But they’re kind of telling (contrast with Ted’s immediate revision of his claim that Sammy Hagar is the best Van Halen singer to “the post-David Lee Roth period”).

And then there are the panic attacks.  From Ted’s statement, there were more that we didn’t see.  And Beard didn’t know about them even when one happened right in front of him.

In contrast, for all that Beard is mysterious about his general backstory, Ted does seem to have a pretty good idea that something is going on with Beard.  We know he’s aware of the issues with Jane, but doesn’t feel like its his place to say anything.  He doesn’t know what specifically happened in Beard After Hours, but we can see him in the last scene clocking both the bruises and the pants.  He accepts Beard’s explanation at face value, but he isn’t fooled by it.

That last scene in Man City is worth revisiting.  Ted invites him to leave with him.  Beard wants to shake it off.  He invites Ted along, but Ted has a family obligation (or excuse).  I don’t think either character did anything wrong here, because people process disappointment and loss in their own ways.

But what happened right before Beard showed up?  Ted had just confessed something pretty huge to Sharon.  He’s in tears.  And he immediately hides that from his friend.  And that makes me think that Beard has no idea about what Ted confessed.  I don’t think Ted has told anyone, ever.  

The thing about the mysterious quiet guy is that you expect them to keep secrets, so you pay attention.  You clock the details when you get them.  You may not know they won a lumberjack award, but you know they can take down a door pretty easily.

But the talkative guy...well, it’s easy to assume you know everything, right?  “I had a breakdown in Liverpool and slept with a girl I just met” says it all, doesn’t it?  Except that somehow Ted’s panic attacks are still a secret a year later.  Because Ted knows how to deflect.  It’s like the magic trick, when he makes Roy’s captain thing disappear then tosses it on his head.  Look over here, and everything over there passes your notice.

Beard’s a good friend, but I don’t think he knows exactly how much he hasn’t been seeing. It might be interesting to see him figure that out.

[hacash]

you can't say that about the team's relationship with nate vs nate's relationship with the team and not expand!

Ok yes let's do this

So first off, the Beard vs Richmond Himbos discussion: I think it's obvious that Beard does like Nate and get along with him in S1 (he called him a good kid and they hang out in the Diamond Dogs, etc.) However, it feels like a lot of that relationship is dependant on Ted - you know how you can have a trio of friends who only seem to hang out because of that one connecting friend? And with Ted withdrawing in s2, the Beard/Nate relationship seems to have thinned out. A lot of people have noticed that while Beard has noticed Nate's sliding behaviour over s2, he's never actually asked what on earth's going on; he doesn't seem concerned that Nate's behaviour might be part of a larger problem. Nate and Beard's friendship seems to function as a part of the Diamond Dogs, or the Beard-Ted-Nate trio - I think before Nate's slide Beard clearly likes Nate, but they're not exactly close.

The Richmond boys, however, clearly adore Nate.

@kalinara pointed out on another post that Colin doesn't reluctantly forgive Nate for his words in Headspace, he does it enthusiastically; and once he does, the entire team piles in with the group hug. They present him with that lovely but ultimately misjudged Wonder Kid jersey on the same day (two days after the match - they really must have wanted to celebrate Nate's success!), so clearly there are no lingering hurt feelings there. In Make Rebecca Great Again we see Colin and Isaac encouraging Nate to party with them in the karaoke bar, and when Nate is nervous about delivering that infamous pep talk before the game at Liverpool, the entire team sense that nervousness and encourage him. The joy they take in celebrating Nate's promotion in the S1 finale is self-evident. And for all that different folks in fandom take Nate's 'inspirational insults' in different ways, to me the reactions from the lads towards the pep talk and the 'I sat you down at the Tottenham match' jibe seem to me to be very, very approving. The lads like it when Nate snarks along with them. They love him.

However.

The show's not touched on it yet - and might never do so, although I hope they do - but I think the boys' affection for Nate does carry with it a slightly clumsy thoughtlessness. (Which I'm not saying means they're acting awfully - but these are Premier League footballers whose status is akin to those of minor gods; they're good hearted, but it makes sense they'd occasionally be a little clumsy with how they treat other people.)

I've rambled before about the fact that it's notable that we've never seen a single Richmond player apologise to Nate for the events of s1, where (with the exception of Roy and Sam) we repeatedly see the teammates either messing with Nate or laughing in encouragement. Jamie apologises to the entire team but not Nate, and while Colin and Isaac lay off him, they don't admit any wrong-doing: they explicitly say it's because they don't want to get another pasting from Roy. And considering the show is so conscientious about showing apologies when they're needed, I can't help wonder if that was done deliberately, and that it's being saved up for some big emotional moment in s3.

Because I can imagine the lads on the team thinking that everything's fine, they get along with Nate now, all's well that ends well, and no hard feelings, right? But that's almost coming from a place of privilege, because I can also imagine that it must still be an issue for Nate. As an audience we fell in love with the himbos in season 2 and so we would automatically think that Nate should love them as much as we love them...but that’s forgetting how much hassle got at the beginning of s1 (and presumably prior to s1), from some of our Richmond faves no less! So I can imagine that how the team as a whole sees their friendship with Nate must be a hell of a lot less complicated than how Nate sees his relationship with the team.

For someone in Nate's shoes - who we see in s1 genuinely pleading Colin to let go when he's got him in a headlock, and asking Colin and Isaac to 'get him twice' rather than screwing with him at the gala - things like that would fester. I don't know what it's like to deal with long-term workplace bullying, but I can imagine that to go from that level of harassment to that level of friendship without even an acknowledgement that past behaviour was wrong must needle you. It must be galling. And we've all noted by now that of all the players to pick on and take down a peg, Nate ends up zeroing in on Colin. Because Colin's canonically insecure and an easy win, yes - but let's be honest, in a horrible sort of way it must have felt good to see Colin flinch from those words, when this was the guy who used to regularly hassle him up in the locker room.

The little snippets of Nate with the team (the celebration of his promotion, the night out at karaoke) suggest he does have affection for them - at least until his ego wins out at the end of s2. I think he does like them. But I think there must also be some lingering, galling resentment that all that bullying happened and was then just swept under the rug; even if the boys don't realise it's even still a problem. And I think that no matter what happens redemption-arc-wise with Nate, that lingering resentment is going to impact Nate's relationship with the Richmond players until everyone sits down and hashes everything out once and for all.

[talldecafcappuccino]

Here, have a Rebecca driving Ted on Christmas ficlet. Merry Christmas ya filthy animals! Ted shut the passenger side door and Rebecca was suddenly very aware there was a man in her car. It had been a while--a long while. It was different from driving Nora or even Keeley. Ted took up physical space in a way she wasn’t used to, he was taller than she sometimes remembered, shoulders broad, and when he bent to click his belt she caught a whiff of cologne--warm and woodsy.

It was strange, but not in a bad way. It was notable. That was all.

“Wow.” He looked into the back of the car, eyebrows raised. “Is this Santa’s sleigh?”

“Something like that,” she replied.

She turned her car keys, the engine roaring to life. Not wanting to ruin the day’s surprise, she quickly changed the subject. “So Henry liked his Christmas gift?”

“Gosh, yeah. Got him a drone. One of those ‘must have’ items on all the lists,” Ted paused, his eyes thoughtful and a little sad. “To be honest I didn’t know what to get him this year. It was easier when he liked legos and trucks. Now it’s all Minecraft youtubers and Fortnite. I don’t understand half of it except there’s these dances Henry has me learning.”

“Oh I know how that goes.” Rebecca nodded, checking her mirrors for traffic. “I bought Nora a birthday gift for the first time in six years and it was a disaster. Turns out she’s not a little girl anymore.”

“Why, what did ya get her? A pony?” He chuckled, but she just stared ahead, clearing her throat slightly as she pulled away from the curb. “You didn’t?”

“Yes, yes I did.”

“Oh boy.” She could hear the smile in his voice. At least her godparenting mishap wasn’t a total waste.

“I know, I know. But Olivia Ride-rigo is living her best life at a children’s camp in Kent and Nora got a new phone instead. So it’s fine.” She put her hand up to stop Ted. “ And before you start, I did not pick the name, Nora did.”

“Oh it’s a great name. No notes from me. I was just going to ask if Horson Welles and Al Capony were being hospitable.”

She shook her head, reaching for the radio, “Okay, no more horse talk.”

Ted waved his hands in mock-surrender. “Of course, I’m just happy to be here. I never want to look a gift horse in the mouth.”

She rolled her eyes and pressed play with one long, manicured finger. Christms music was just what she needed to get Ted into the holiday spirit. But when Bing Crosby’s voice filled the car, it was slow and melancholy.

Christmas eve will find me, where the love light gleams, I'll be home for Christmas, If only in my dreams . . .

Oh no. That wouldn’t do. She’d just rescued him from thoughts of home back in Kansas. There had to be something on one of the other stations. She clicked to the next station and Elvis Presley’s lazy drawl filled the car.

You'll be doing all right, with your Christmas of white, But I'll have a blue, blue, blue, blue Christmas

Well that was worse. Whoever was in charge of the Christmas Day music rotation was having a very bad day. She stopped at the light and jabbed the button one more time. The song that came through seemed upbeat enough, but the lyrics . . .

They're singing "Deck The Halls,” but it's not like Christmas at all, 'Cause I remember when you were here, and all the fun we had last year

“Bloody hell,” she muttered, reaching to turn the whole thing off. But before she could, Ted’s hand was on hers.

“No, leave it. I like this song.”

She tore her eyes from the car stopped ahead of her and saw he was smiling, small but genuine. His hand pressed against hers, a sudden tingle lighting up across her hand, like closing an electric circuit. But Ted didn’t react, just started singing along quietly.

(Christmas) pretty lights on the tree

(Christmas) I'm watching them shine

(Christmas) you should be here with me

(Christmas) baby, please come home

She nodded, gathering her thoughts. “Me too. It’s . . . nice.”

Ted's smile grew, eyes crinkling a bit at the corners. Finally, he took his hand back and turned to look out the passenger window, humming quietly.

She looked back at the road just as the light changed, the song playing still as she tried to wrap her head around whatever just happened.

It was strange, but not in a bad way. It was notable. That was all.

[lunnessey]

my favorite thing, the thing that absolutely sells me on ted lasso as a show is the shows tendency to first present a character to the audience as a villain and then immediately turn around and show you that these people are hurt and sad, they have people who love them desperately and love in return, that they’re lonely and isolated. why they act the way that they do, where they learned these behaviors. jamie, rebecca, trent crimm, colin, isaac and nate are all shown to us in opposition to our “heroes” at one point or another, and even if their behavior is not excusable or forgivable you can’t help but feel for and understand them! even people who in any other show would not be villains but would not be sympathetic characters, like ted’s (ex) wife or rebecca’s mom. really interested after beard’s odyssey to see if we’ll go that way with jane payne as well.

the only notable exceptions are james tartt and rupert. abusers both! and i really wonder if that’s going to come up next episode  

[exuberantocean]

Rules: List the first lines of your last 20 stories. See if there are any patterns. Choose your favorite opening line. Then tag some people to take part.  Tagged by @sparrowsarus

If you want to do this, consider yourself tagged!

1. So Close (WIP, Ted Lasso, Tedbecca)

Rebecca blames the bloody biscuits.

2. Breathe Deep the Gathering Gloom (Ted Lasso, Gen, Ted & Beard)

The alarm blares, jarring Beard's already frazzled nerves, until fumbling, he manages to slap it into silence.

3. Fingertips (Ted Lasso, Ted/Trent)

Trent Crimm (newly independent) carried with him a secret.

4. Bird by Bird (Ted Lasso, Gen Diamond Dogs)

“I’m so proud of her, but I just…feel like I’m being left behind.”

5. Onward (Ted Lasso, tedbecca)

The papery rustling of the wind through fields of corn was the first thing he became aware of.

6. Over Troubled Water (Ted Lasso, Gen/Preship, Ted & Rebecca)

“Hiya, Keeley!”

7. Heart (MASH, Hawkeye/BJ)

BJ’s eyes shot open as he awoke with a gasp.

8. Good Night Sleeping Beauty (MASH, Hawkeye/Trapper)

When the truck rolled to a stop, Trapper gave Radar’s cuff a little tug.

9. On Writing Panic Attacks (Original Essay)

One morning three years or so ago I was driving to work.

10. Humming Down the Night (MASH, Hawkeye/Trapper)

It wasn’t hard to sweet talk Henry into giving Frank the first shift in post op.

11. A Little Comfort in the Night (MASH, Gen, Hawkeye & Charles)

Charles Emerson Winchester the third’s precious sleep was being interrupted yet again.

12. Families (MASH, Gen, Hawkeye & Margaret)

It pleased Margaret Houlihan to find post op a model of order and efficiency at the start of her shift.

13. The Feline Incident (Schitt’s Creek, David/Patrick

David knew something was wrong the minute Patrick greeted him at the door.

14. Rosetta (MASH, Gen, Hawkeye)

The closer the bus gets to Crabapple Cove, the more distant, the more flat the world around him appears.

15. Regrets (ST: Disco, Paul/Hugh)

“Ohmygodohmygodhmygod-”

16. Ways McShep Could Have Happened: A Ficlet Collection (SGA, McShep)

“What did you touch.”

17. Heat (Due South, Fraser/RayK)

The summer brought an unexpected heat and though the taiga east of Inuvik offered shelter in the shade of it’s evergreen trees, the plains to the west held no escape the intense sunlight.

18. Grounding (SPN, Sam/Gabriel)

Sam usually knows it’s coming before it hits.  

19. Under the Sway of the Sycamore Trees (SPN, Gen, Sam & Gabriel)

Once the initial shock wore off and explanations were given which, to Gabriel, felt like a semi-comprehensible whirlwind of words, Dean gave him a sound thump on the back and, to the archangel’s surprise, Sam enveloped him in a warm hug.

20. Bring Me Back Home (SPN, Gen)

“And you’re sure this will work, Rowena?”

BONUS: Because going 20 fics back doesn’t get me to two of my favorite stories I wrote:

There is Some Relief in Letting Go (Twin Peaks, Gen-mostly)

He is letting Her go.

Decomposition (SPN, Cas-centric with Dean/Cas mention)

I pray to thee o’ Castiel to give me a call as soon as you can; we’ll pick you up.

It's the Third Time that Counts (SGA, McShep) 

“When are you two getting married?”

The Valentine's Day Curse (SGA, McShep)

“…but seriously Carson, I can walk. Kind of.”

Patterns: I’m not sure I really see any patterns, other than a lot of the first lines are short, with some notable exceptions.

Favorite first line: I’m not sure I’m really that gifted at first lines, tbh.  I should work on that.  I think it’s a tie between Onward’s " The papery rustling of the wind through fields of corn was the first thing he became aware of.” and Breathe Deep the Gathering Gloom’s “The alarm blares, jarring Beard's already frazzled nerves, until fumbling, he manages to slap it into silence. “

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Why Is It So Hard for Democrats to Act Like They Actually Won?

By

Rebecca Solnit

November 19, 2020

When Trump won the 2016 election—while losing the popular vote—the New York Times seemed obsessed with running features about what Trump voters were feeling and thinking. These pieces treated them as both an exotic species and people it was our job to understand, understand being that word that means both to comprehend and to grant some sort of indulgence to. Now that Trump has lost the 2020 election, the Los Angeles Times has given their editorial page over to letters from Trump voters, who had exactly the sort of predictable things to say we have been hearing for far more than four years, thanks to the New York Times and what came to seem like about 11,000 other news outlets hanging on the every word of every white supremacist they could convince to go on the record.

The letters editor headed this section with, “In my decade editing this page, there has never been a period when quarreling readers have seemed so implacably at odds with each other, as if they get their facts and values from different universes. As one small attempt to bridge the divide, we are providing today a page full of letters from Trump supporters.” The implication is the usual one: we—urban multiethnic liberal-to-radical only-partly-Christian America—need to spend more time understanding MAGA America. The demands do not go the other way. Fox and Ted Cruz and the Federalist have not chastised their audiences, I feel pretty confident, with urgings to enter into discourse with, say, Black Lives Matter activists, rabbis, imams, abortion providers, undocumented valedictorians, or tenured lesbians. When only half the divide is being tasked with making the peace, there is no peace to be made, but there is a unilateral surrender on offer. We are told to consider this bipartisanship, but the very word means both sides abandon their partisanship, and Mitch McConnell and company have absolutely no interest in doing that.

Paul Waldman wrote a valuable column in the Washington Post a few years ago, in which he pointed out that this discord is valuable fuel to right-wing operatives: “The assumption is that if Democrats simply choose to deploy this powerful tool of respect, then minds will be changed and votes will follow. This belief, widespread though it may be, is stunningly naive.” He notes that the sense of being disrespected “doesn’t come from the policies advocated by the Democratic Party, and it doesn’t come from the things Democratic politicians say. Where does it come from? An entire industry that’s devoted to convincing white people that liberal elitists look down on them. The right has a gigantic media apparatus that is devoted to convincing people that liberals disrespect them, plus a political party whose leaders all understand that that idea is key to their political project and so join in the chorus at every opportunity.”

There’s also often a devil’s bargain buried in all this, that you flatter and, yeah, respect these white people who think this country is theirs by throwing other people under the bus—by disrespecting immigrants and queer people and feminists and their rights and views. And you reinforce that constituency’s sense that they matter more than other people when you pander like this, and pretty much all the problems we’ve faced over the past four years, to say nothing of the last five hundred, come from this sense of white people being more important than nonwhites, Christians than non-Christians, native-born than immigrant, male than female, straight than queer, cis-gender than trans.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito just complained that “you can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Now it’s considered bigotry.” This is a standard complaint of the right: the real victim is the racist who has been called a racist, not the victim of his racism, the real oppression is to be impeded in your freedom to oppress. And of course Alito is disingenuous; you can say that stuff against marriage equality (and he did). Then other people can call you a bigot, because they get to have opinions too, but in his scheme such dissent is intolerable, which is fun coming from a member of the party whose devotees wore “fuck your feelings” shirts at its rallies and popularized the term “snowflake.”

Nevertheless, we get this hopelessly naïve version of centrism, of the idea that if we’re nicer to the other side there will be no other side, just one big happy family. This inanity is also applied to the questions of belief and fact and principle, with some muddled cocktail of moral relativism and therapists’ “everyone’s feelings are valid” applied to everything. But the truth is not some compromise halfway between the truth and the lie, the fact and the delusion, the scientists and the propagandists. And the ethical is not halfway between white supremacists and human rights activists, rapists and feminists, synagogue massacrists and Jews, xenophobes and immigrants, delusional transphobes and trans people. Who the hell wants unity with Nazis until and unless they stop being Nazis?

I think our side, if you’ll forgive my ongoing shorthand and binary logic, has something to offer everyone and we can and must win in the long run by offering it, and offering it via better stories and better means to make those stories reach everyone. We actually want to see everyone have a living wage, access to healthcare, and lives unburdened by medical, student, and housing debt. We want this to be a thriving planet when the babies born this year turn 80 in 2100. But the recommended compromise means abandoning and diluting our stories, not fortifying and improving them (and finding ways for them to actually reach the rest of America, rather than having them warped or shut out altogether). I’ve spent much of my adult life watching politicians like Bill Clinton and, at times, Barack Obama sell out their own side to placate the other, with dismal results, and I pray that times have changed enough that Joe Biden will not do it all over again.

Among the other problems with the LA Times’s editor’s statement is that one side has a lot of things that do not deserve to be called facts, and their values are too often advocacy for harming many of us on the other side. Not to pick on one news outlet: Sunday, the Washington Post ran a front-page sub-head about the #millionMAGAmarch that read “On stark display in the nation’s capital were two irreconcilable versions of America, each refusing to accept what the other considered to be undeniable fact.” Except that one side did have actual facts, notably that Donald J. Trump lost the election, and the other had hot and steamy delusions.

I can comprehend, and do, that lots of people don’t believe climate change is real, but is there some great benefit in me listening, again, to those who refuse to listen to the global community of scientists and see the evidence before our eyes? A lot of why the right doesn’t “understand” climate change is that climate change tells us everything is connected, everything we do has far-reaching repercussions, and we’re responsible for the whole, a message at odds with their idealization of a version of freedom that smells a lot like disconnection and irresponsibility. But also climate denial is the result of fossil fuel companies and the politicians they bought spreading propaganda and lies for profit, and I understand that better than the people who believe it. If half of us believe the earth is flat, we do not make peace by settling on it being halfway between round and flat. Those of us who know it’s round will not recruit them through compromise. We all know that you do better bringing people out of delusion by being kind and inviting than by mocking them, but that’s inviting them to come over, which is not the same thing as heading in their direction.

The editor spoke of facts, and he spoke of values. In the past four years too many members of the right have been emboldened to carry out those values as violence. One of the t-shirts at the #millionMAGAmarch this weekend: “Pinochet did nothing wrong.” Except stage a coup, torture and disappear tens of thousands of Chileans, and violate laws and rights. A right-wing conspiracy to overthrow the Michigan government and kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer was recently uncovered, racists shot some Black Lives Matter protestors and plowed their cars into a lot of protests this summer. The El Paso anti-immigrant massacre was only a year ago; the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre two years ago, the Charlottesville white-supremacist rally in which Heather Heyer was killed three years ago (and of course there have been innumerable smaller incidents all along). Do we need to bridge the divide between Nazis and non-Nazis? Because part of the problem is that we have an appeasement economy, a system that is supposed to be greased by being nice to the other side.

Appeasement didn’t work in the 1930s and it won’t work now. That doesn’t mean that people have to be angry or hate back or hostile, but it does mean they have to stand on principle and defend what’s under attack. There are situations in which there is no common ground worth standing on, let alone hiking over to. If Nazis wanted to reach out and find common ground and understand us, they probably would not have had that tiki-torch parade full of white men bellowing “Jews will not replace us” and, also, they would not be Nazis. Being Nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, transphobes is all part of a project of refusing to understand as part of refusing to respect. It is a minority position but by granting it deference we give it, over and over, the power of a majority position.

In fact the whole Republican Party, since long before Trump, has committed itself to the antidemocratic project of trying to create a narrower electorate rather than win a wider vote. They have invested in voter suppression as a key tactic to win, and the votes they try to suppress are those of Black voters and other voters of color. That is a brutally corrupt refusal to allow those citizens the rights guaranteed to them by law. Having failed to prevent enough Black people from voting in the recent election, they are striving mightily to discard their votes after the fact. What do you do with people who think they matter more than other people? Catering to them reinforces that belief, that they are central to the nation’s life, they are more important, and their views must prevail. Deference to intolerance feeds intolerance.

Years ago the linguist George Lakoff wrote that Democrats operate as kindly nurturance-oriented mothers to the citizenry, Republicans as stern discipline-oriented fathers. But the relationship between the two parties is a marriage, between an overly deferential wife and an overbearing and often abusive husband (think of how we got our last two Supreme Court justices and failed to get Merrick Garland). The Hill just ran a headline that declared “GOP Senators say that a Warren nomination would divide Republicans.” I am pretty sure they didn’t run headlines that said, “Democratic Senators say a Pompeo (or Bolton or Perdue or Sessions) nomination would divide Democrats.” I grew up in an era where wives who were beaten were expected to do more to soothe their husbands and not challenge them, and this carries on as the degrading politics of our abusive national marriage.

Some of us don’t know how to win. Others can’t believe they ever lost or will lose or should, and their intransigence constitutes a kind of threat. That’s why the victors of the recent election are being told in countless ways to go grovel before the losers. This unilateral surrender is how misogyny and racism are baked into a lot of liberal and centrist as well as right-wing positions, this idea that some people need to be flattered and buffered even when they are harming the people who are supposed to do the flattering and buffering, even when they are the minority, even when they’re breaking the law or lost the election. Lakoff didn’t quite get to the point of saying that this nation lives in a household full of what domestic abuse advocates call coercive control, in which one partner’s threats, intimidations, devaluations, and general shouting down control the other.

This is what marriages were before feminism, with the abused wife urged to placate and soothe the furious husband. Feminism is good for everything, and it’s a good model for seeing that this is both outrageous and a recipe for failure. It didn’t work in marriages, and it never was the abused partner’s job to prevent the abuse by surrendering ground and rights and voice. It is not working as national policy either. Now is an excellent time to stand on principle and defend what we value, and I believe it’s a winning strategy too, or at least brings us closer to winning than surrender does. Also, it’s worth repeating, we won, and being gracious in victory is still being victorious.

[Rebecca Solnit’s first media job was in fact-checking and her last book is the memoir Recollections of My Nonexistence. She’s sent a lot of mail to her nieces and nephews during the pandemic.]

[yegarts]

Blind Ambition: Heroic story of Canadian pilot takes flight in new film by local filmmaker

Filmmaker Frederick Kroetsch, photo supplied by the artist.

When it comes to filmmaking, Frederick Kroetsch is a man of many talents; he has worked as a reporter, camera operator, host, director, TV producer, and he currently runs Catapult Pictures with his wife Rebecca Campbell. He has produced thousands of broadcast stories covering everything from Cattle Police to Astronauts, and as a documentary filmmaker, he has filmed in countries around the world. He has created dozens of projects that range from comedy web-series to feature-length documentaries. He is currently nominated for two Alberta Rosie Awards: Best Screenwriter Unscripted under 30 Minutes and Best Cinematographer Unscripted over 30 Minutes. 

And now Frederick has one more notable career highlight to add to the list – the world premiere of his new short documentary Blind Ambition: The Wop May Story at the Edmonton International Film Festival.

Shot on 35mm filmstock with an orchestral musical score, Blind Ambition brings to life the story of an inspiring and courageous pilot:

After learning to fly in WWI, a young Canadian man returns home to start a bold career in aviation. Barnstormer, lifesaver, and intrepid bush pilot, Wilfred ‘Wop’ May proves the value of flight to the world. But an old injury requires catastrophic vision surgery and forces him to admit he’d done it all with only one good eye. Now grounded, Wop continues to push aviation forward by running training schools for pilots and navigators in WWII, creates the first Air Search and Rescue service, and opens the Arctic and Pacific Rim to commercial flight. But this dedication leaves little time for family, and upon Wop’s death, his teenage son discovers how little he really knew his father when he travels the North and hears tales of his adventures, heroics, and generosity - the legacy of Wop May.

In anticipation of the film’s premiere, we connected with Frederick to learn more about his career as a filmmaker and the process of telling the incredible story of a Canadian aviation hero.

Q: Tell us a little bit about yourself as an artist. How did you get involved in filmmaking?

I got invited to film with some friends when I was in grade 6 – I think we were shooting a Doctor Who spin off. It was gloriously terrible. And we didn’t stop. Video tapes were cheap, and editing was difficult. Following the innocence of Hi8-video I got a fine arts degree at the Concordia film school in Montreal, became a TV journalist for 10 years, and then went back to filmmaking. Currently I enjoy balancing commercial work with smaller art projects.

Q: Your film Blind Ambition tells the story of legendary Canadian pilot, Wilfrid “Wop” May. What drew you to his story?

I recall hearing about him when I was a journalist – I always wanted to find a way to make a project about Wilfrid ‘Wop’ May. Years later I was debating the idea of filming a stop-animation art film about him. I visited the Alberta Aviation Museum to learn more and discovered a lot of new details. Wop was way ahead of his time. Against the social conventions of the day, he hired the first female and Asian pilots. He survived a dogfight against the Red Baron by not knowing how to fly. He did aerial stunts, saved lives, and helped open the arctic with his bush plane. And HE DID IT ALL WITH ONE WORKING EYE. That’s crazy! It’s a story that demands to be told!

Q: You describe the film as a creative documentary. How does this style of documentary differ from the style audiences are likely more accustomed to, and how do you think this form of storytelling added to the story of Wop May?

What I refer to as a ‘Standard Documentary’ is what we see quite often on the news or on Youtube – talking heads interspersed with ‘B-roll.’ Which is a great style for disseminating information but is rather uncinematic.

When discussing Wop May, I felt emotive forces reminiscent of watching adventure films from the 1980s like Indiana Jones. I wanted to find a way to recreate that nostalgic, inspired feeling. Also, we didn’t have any photographs for some of his amazing adventures. So, we decided to film dramatic recreations in two different ways. The first method was with designing comic books that we filmed, and the second was live-action recreations using actors, props and costumes. We filmed in real airplanes with stunt pilots. And we shot it all on 35mm Kodak film stock. We also shot it on anamorphic lenses, which squeeze the image so you can have a classic widescreen aspect ratio. These elements helped to create the atmosphere in which to tell Wop’s life story. I wanted the audience to feel like a kid watching Indiana Jones for the first time, except with a documentary about a real person.

Top: Actor Jesse Gervais with stunt pilot Ted Reynolds, photo by Frederick Kroetsch . Bottom: School room scene from Blind Ambition, photo by  Frederick Kroetsch.

Q: Tell us more about your decision to shoot with 35mm film. What were some of the challenges and rewards to using 35mm?

Our cinematographer David Baron really pushed us to shoot on 35mm Kodak film stock. As much as that sounded like a cool thing to co-director Tom Robinson and I – and it’s pretty cool – we weren't entirely sure that was the best move for us. It’s expensive and you can’t tell if it worked until weeks later when it’s processed. Also, we had VERY little money. We tried it out… and it was beautiful. The grain structure of the film stock perfectly emulated that nostalgic blockbuster feel. Tonally, it fit well with the visual language of historical archives like 8mm and turn of the century photography.

Shooting on film meant we had to change the way we normally make films. We could only do a few takes of each shot – which meant everything had to be rehearsed and perfect. The camera is huge and heavy – which meant we focused more on creating movement in the frame. We had to use a tape measure for focusing – it forced us to be more aware of details. Our artistic process was able to step back in time and enjoy the madness of cinema before it became digital. We are intending to shoot more of it.

Q: For the film, the score was created with a European orchestra. What was it like to work remotely with the Prague FILMharmonic Orchestra? Were there any other collaborations (either local or international) that helped achieve the vision of your film?

Composer John McMillan was the artistic force behind our musical score and the orchestra in Prague. I had just worked with John on Rebecca Campbell’s documentary The Secret Society, and I wanted to work with him again. As soon as he heard the words ‘1980s adventure films’ he was instantly on board. He spent weeks writing the music, and then he hired some recent graduates from the MacEwan class that he teaches for the notation. John also secured a grant from the MacEwan Music Department to record with the Prague FILMharmonic Orchestra a 50-piece orchestra.

The recording took place in a studio at MacEwan. We had a live video feed to the studio in Prague. Someone handed me a stack of sheet music – I stared at it confused. A conductor began speaking in Czech. Then the music began, and we recorded for 3 hours. After that the score was mixed by Paul Johnston, and then went into post audio with Johnny Blerot. It was a lengthy process, and we’re lucky to have worked with so many professional artists.

Q: What do you hope Edmonton audiences will take away from the film?

Wop May is all around us in Edmonton. There are numerous murals on the sides of buildings. The neighbourhood of Mayfield is named after him – that was where he landed his planes. The Blatchford Hanger is where he worked in WW2. I want people to watch this and feel like they’re a kid again, excited and amazed at a good story. And then ask the question – what is a hero?

 You can catch the world premier of Blind Ambition: The Wop May Story at the Edmonton International Film Festival on October 3, 2021, 5:45 PM at Landmark Cinema 9 City Centre. Click here for more information about tickets and online viewing options.

[itsclydebitches]

Not to slam in with thoughts about a two year old episode, but when I’m not cackling over Trent getting compared to a Roomba, I’m really interested in his reaction to Ted visiting the school:

“Oh, what a coincidence. The day of our interview you just happen to be visiting a local school.”

Prior to their shared meal, Trent is at his most emotional here. Specifically, he’s sarcastic. He’s already seen Ted admit to using Nate’s play and giving an embarrassing performance of what he wants Jamie to do — “Ball! Ball! I want the ball!”—yet it’s only now that Trent reacts in a fairly overt, negative manner. Which makes sense to me. So far, Ted has (presumably) been digging a deep hole for himself, prompting Trent to keep quiet, keep a handle on his disbelief, keep smiling politely as Ted heaves another shovel of dirt. Ted has been doing Trent’s work for him all day, giving him a goldmine of moments to eviscerate him with in print. This is the “fucking joke” whose presence here is “irresponsible” and thus far, everything Ted has done has reinforced that perception. Yet now, Ted has announced that they’re doing something that objectively looks good—playing with local kids—and that immediately puts Trent back on familiar footing. Of course there’s a trip planned on the day of the interview. Trent understands his subjects trying to influence him like this and so finally Coach Lasso starts making sense. I think at this point in the episode Trent was fully prepared to write one of the most scathing articles of his career. Ted Lasso has, presumably, revealed himself to be exactly like every other interviewee who thinks they can butter him up with some “coincidental” community work, with the exception that Ted Lasso has also made a complete fool of himself during practice and admits to getting advice from the kitman kicking poo around. It’s a double whammy: Inept American Coach Tries Desperately to Look Good in the Final Hour. Trent’s not fooled.

Except, of course, we know that Ted isn’t supposed to look good. That’s the entire point here. Rebecca has planned all of this in the hope that Trent will write exactly the kind of piece he’s currently outlining in his head, so… why the school trip? As Trent’s sarcasm highlights, this kind of work is designed to make even the most lackluster coach look better than they actually are. Who doesn’t love selfless playtime with kids? By all accounts, Rebecca should be ensuring that this trip is on any day but the one when Trent comes to visit.

The thing is though, she knows the Richmond community.

She doesn’t know about Ted’s influence on Roy.

The way I see it, without the work Ted did earlier in the episode, that outing would have added a mile to Ted’s already deep hole. Most of what we see during the school trip reinforces the idea that Ted is unfit for this position, if only because everyone hates him. The teacher doesn’t bother to get his name right (“Ed Lasso.”) The kids are dead silent when Ted comes out, uncaring except for that, “Wanker!” and his reception is contrasted with the awe and adulation given to Roy. Ted again acts in what others would consider an embarrassing fashion by participating in the headers with the kids. Then he’s given a bloody nose by Phoebe. With the exception of the one curly-haired kid getting Ted’s autograph (which, notably, he bleeds on) and the teacher’s acknowledgment that no one has ever bothered to stay this long, this outing is a bust for Ted. Which, given the assumption that Rebecca knew about the outing and had it “coincidentally” planned, is precisely what she wanted. She knows her community’s feelings about Ted (mostly hatred) and she knows by now that he’s likely to do things that make him look even worse in their eyes (he does). By setting up this trip, Rebecca threw him to the proverbial wolves. It wouldn’t have worked with any other coach, but it works for Ted, because he’s already the ignorant American that no one asked for. At this point in the episode, Trent is still crafting that scathing article. His smirk at the kids’ rejection of Ted says it all.

The linchpin here ends up being Roy who, at the very last moment, right before the day ends, accosts Ted over the work he’s done earlier in the episode. Namely, setting up the expectation that Roy will need to do a better job of leading his team—first and foremost by dealing with Jamie—and following that up by giving him A Wrinkle in Time. It’s only when Roy mentions “mind games” and “gifts” that Trent gets interested again. His understanding of the situation just changed.

Mind games? Gifts? Roy Kent floundering at whatever this new coach has been teaching? That’s not Ted making a fool of himself, nor is it him presumably buttering Trent up. This is something new and very unexpected.

Trent ends up learning a lot of things about Ted in the span of just a few seconds. He has, apparently, read a novel that Trent thinks is “lovely.” He’s gifted that novel to Roy Kent, a legend with one hell of a prickly personality. And he’s given that gift with a very specific intention. When Roy explodes with, “Am I meant to be the little girl?” Trent’s expression is surprised fascination. Yes, Coach Lasso, did you give Roy Kent that novel with the hope that he will learn something from its protagonist in a brilliant, “subtle” form of mentorship?

And Ted says yeah, “I’d like you to be.”

Holy shit. Maybe this guy isn’t clueless after all. In a shocking turn of events, Trent needs to do more investigating.

This moment is Ted’s in. Without that work done earlier with Roy and without Roy bringing Trent’s attention to it, I’m not sure Trent would have agreed to the dinner. Or if he did, he wouldn’t have gone into it with the same open mind. This entire day Trent has been watching Ted make seemingly terrible coaching mistakes, acting in embarrassing ways, and being told by community and players alike that they’re all eagerly waiting for him to leave… yet at the restaurant he says, “Let battle commence.” The battle should have been won already, but Trent is resetting the board, giving Ted another chance to prove him wrong. And that’s precisely what Ted does.

Here, the situation is flipped. Trent gets to see a member of the community who doesn’t hate Ted, Ollie, who is not just polite, but downright excited to see him. Trent is suddenly Ted’s sole focus and is thus at the mercy of those sincere compliments—“Congrats. You both just met a cool person”—as well as his affection for others, even if they haven’t warmed up to him yet. Ollie is his “buddy.” Trent is already a “friend.” Food should be made like they’re “a member of the family.” And, of course, there’s the sacrifice of not just eating the insanely hot food so as to avoid offending the family, not just avoiding taking away joy he’s already produced (“Hey, Dad! He says it’s perfect!”), but also taking Trent’s food to cover for him. Ted gets to show his heart in a far more welcoming environment and he gets to prove that he’s more than just a positive attitude. Originally, Ted’s philosophy on winning and losing was a damning quote Trent was eager to write down. Now, Ted gets the chance to expand that damning line into a philosophy with context: “Now, I’m gonna say this again just so you don’t think it was a mistake the first time I said it.” That’s precisely what Trent thought, or simply that it was the statement of a fool. But here, Ted jokingly rejects the idea that he’d do this job for the money, reassures Trent that he knows this club means a lot to people, and sternly explains that football is more than just getting a W or an L on the record book. It’s about making sure the boys participating in this game know that someone believes in them. The endless kindness and optimism that Trent originally dismissed is at the core of how Ted defines success. It’s not a distraction from his coaching (look at that idiot doing headers instead of leading the activity), it is his coaching. Trent’s, “You really mean that, don’t you?” isn’t just disbelieving confirmation that Ted enjoyed spending time with him, specifically, it’s a broader confirmation that Ted is living the philosophy he preaches. He believes in people. 

But none of that would have occurred if not, as Ted puts it earlier, that one domino falling in Roy’s heart. A great deal of Ted Lasso is about ripple effects and I love this episode as an early example of that. A throwaway line about the expectations of this interaction (coaches set up events to make themselves look good) contrasted with knowledge of Rebecca’s endgame (she doesn’t want Ted to look good), creates a rather interesting peek into how things should have and would have gone down if Ted wasn’t already implementing his coaching style. Taking Ollie’s invitation personally even though he tells everyone to come to the restaurant, encouraging Roy to step up as a leader, giving those books as gifts, even Roy’s love for Phoebe and his willingness to participate in an event at her school… all of it was required to create a scenario in which Trent could eventually write the words “I will not gloat” and mean it. Without the work Ted had already done in the locker room, without that spiraling outward to create additional impacts, I think Rebecca would have succeeded. Trent would not have written a kinder article about the Lasso Way unless the Lasso Way was already out there and influencing the community, him most of all. It’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, with Ted’s acts in the beginning of the episode becoming the very things he needed to help convince others of their importance later on.

[jazzworldquest-blog]

USA: CHRIS ROGERS "VOYAGE HOME" CD-Release Party Thursday, August 31st 8pm @ ZINC BAR

CHRIS ROGERS "VOYAGE HOME" CD Release Party Thursday, August 31st 8pm @ ZINC BAR 82 W 3rd Street, NYC, NY 10012 (Thompson & Sullivan)  212-477-9462 Featuring Chris Rogers - trumpet, flugelhorn,keyboards & composer Roger Rosenberg - baritone & soprano saxophones Oscar Perez - piano Jay Anderson - bass Steve Johns - drums Willie Martinez - percussion plus special guests TBA

The concept of Family is so fundamental to musical development, especially in New York City where so many families-by-choice evolve through shared musical experiences in its huge artistic melting pot. For the outstanding trumpeter/composer Chris Rogers, that family essence is at the heart and soul of his personal vision, and in full evidence on his remarkable debut album Voyage Home for Art of Life Records. Chris has been blessed to be a part of multiple families – his deeply musical birth family that included his father, the legendary Salsa and jazz trombonist Barry Rogers; the extended family surrounding the Brecker Brothers (alongside whom Barry played in the seminal jazz fusion ensemble Dreams); and his own family of collaborators who he has met through his own participation in the ensembles of a virtual who’s who of contemporary music. All of these components are brewed together in the sumptuous feast that is Voyage Home. “Listening to Mike, Randy and my dad playing together, and all Barry’s great solos on those classic Eddie Palmieri sides pretty much informed my concepts … and have been such towering influences upon me – that the music here can be considered a direct reflection of their incredible spirits.” Dedicated to Michael Brecker (who lends his spectacular artistry on two tracks that Chris was fortunate to record with him before his tragically premature departure), this album also includes many artists – in person and through some individual track dedications (including Don Grolnick, Lew Soloff Mike Lawrence, Ray Barretto) – closely allied with the expansive Brecker Brothers’ legacy. But like all tributes in their finest form, the real homage is embodied in the creation of a personal statement in a singular vision by an artist honed through that spirit. The nine Chris Rogers originals contained here truly embody that concept. They also reflect the broad palette of personal musical experiences that Chris has had in his own journey alongside such diverse luminaries as Gerry Mulligan, Eddie Palmieri, Frank Sinatra, Buddy Rich, Chaka Khan, Mongo Santamaria, Maria Schneider, Ray Barretto, Lee Konitz, Tom Harrell… and the list goes on and on. This long overdue first album as a leader blends all those ingredients into a heady brew that is adventurous, celebratory and captivating. Chris has assembled a stellar crew for this maiden voyage, musically connected with him and with each other, powerfully contributing to the remarkable synergy that is at play throughout the album.  The brilliant bass/drums tandem of Jay Anderson and Steve Johns provide flawless, seemingly telepathic support throughout, whether driving ferociously, warmly embellishing, or grooving smoothly Powerhouse pianist Xavier Davis melds with them perfectly on six tracks, adding a few stunning solos as well.  Synthesizer/ keyboard wizard Mark Falchook joins the rhythm section on three. In addition to the two tracks with Mike, the splendid tenor and alto saxophonist Ted Nash performs on four; while baritone saxophonist Roger Rosenberg and trombonist Art Baron perform on a very special dedication to Barry Rogers – enhanced by the great man himself on an introductory trombone cadenza (thanks to the blessings of technology) with a most fitting statement drawn from Palmieri’s 1965 classic album Mozambique. The great guitarist Steve Khan is included on three tracks, two of which include the fine conguero/percussionist Willie Martinez. Drawn upon his Miles/Brecker/Harrell/Woody Shaw influences, Rogers’ impeccable trumpet playing – articulate, exploratory, adventurous, utterly musical and virtuosic, but never for its own sake or ostentatious in any way – is eminently showcased, but totally in keeping with the overall context of the album and always leaving plenty of room for the others to offer their own prodigious contributions. The repertoire is terrific, showcasing Chris’ superb compositional and arranging talents in a nicely diverse array of works that are exciting, lyrical and structured to provide inspired launching points for the exploratory tales told within. Ballads, Latin, hard boppish funk and blues, and rip-roaring smokers are all part of the mix. There is a 3-track “suite” of sorts – the jaunty Rebecca born as a samba, evolving into  straight-up Afro/Cuban; the beautiful love song Ever After; and the intriguingly angular Six Degrees – in which Chris adds his own notable keyboard skills to the mix on two pieces along with his trumpet – Harmon-muted on a pair. Khan is prominently present on all three with exceptional solos and his marvelous signature comping; and Martinez’ percussion mastery adds a fervid glow. Roger and Art join Chris and Ted in a richly sumptuous 4-horn soundscape on the poignant paean to Barry Rogers, Ballad for B.R. launched by Barry Rogers’ “borrowed” radiant trombone cadenza, and featuring compelling solos by Chris, Nash (on alto) and Rosenberg. Nash – virile, muscular and boldly creative – is prominently featured on tenor with Chris on the front line for three other tracks. The title track Voyage Home is an atmospheric journey that evokes that profound essence of the progressive 60s’ Blue Note music in its daring, fully in-command approach with imaginative and confrontational solos by both hornmen. The Mask is a deliciously jagged funk-fest with soulful tenor, riveting trumpet and vibrant piano solos – in a groove that while relaxed is also high in heat. And the album closer,  The 12-Year Itch is a jubilant funky-hard-bop shuffle with nicely swaggering horn turns. Michael Brecker, who always brought his all fully to the music, is absolutely sensational on his two tracks. The album opener Counter Change is a straightforward hard-bop blues with some edgy changes that sets the tone for exhilarating Rogers, two-fisted Davis and sinewy, full bodied Brecker. Whit’s End (named for Whit Sidener, one of Chris’ teachers, and dedicated to Brecker) is a deftly syncopated romp driven by an insistent piano/bass ostinato with delightful rhythmic shifting from blazing drive to Latin and peppered with touches of rubato. Rogers’ thoughtful solo is beautifully constructed and sets the path for a monster Brecker solo – gutty, incandescent and absolutely scorching – that epitomizes his indelible and immortal spirit. It may have taken a long time for Chris Rogers to finally make his own statement on record, but Voyage Home will certainly last in the memory and set the tone for much more to come from this extraordinary artist.  

Chris Rogers: “Voyage Home” (Art of Life AL1045-2) Street Date: February 3, 2017

Chris Rogers: trumpet, keyboards; Michael Brecker: tenor saxophone; Ted Nash: tenor & alto saxophone; Steve Khan: guitar; Xavier Davis: piano; Jay Anderson: bass; Steve Johns: drums; Barry Rogers: trombone; Roger Rosenberg: baritone saxophone; Art Baron: trombone; Mark Falchook: synthesizer/keyboards; Willie Martinez: congas, percussion For more information, visit  http://ift.tt/2ihpn2J  

National Press Campaign Jim Eigo Jazz Promo Services Ph: 845-986-1677 jim@jazzpromoservices.com http://ift.tt/1dvRi4z "Specializing in Media Campaigns for the music community, artists, labels, venues and events.” National Radio Campaign KATE SMITH PROMOTIONS Cell:  814.482.0010 katesmithpromotions.kate@gmail.com http://ift.tt/2suN34o

via Blogger http://ift.tt/2fY5mxi