Ulysses (and other bad baby names)

I could never name my kid Ulysses...or Hercules, Rasputin, Nero, Achilles, Adolph, Barack, Voldemort, Crispin, Ganondorf, Drogan, Icarus, Darth, Bart, Akuji, Jolon, Princess, Ryu, Alva, Ravana, Teivel, Iyzebel, Baal, Ahab, Soren, Anakin, Neo, Dartagnan, Bogart, Zuma, Oedipus, Ares, Zeus, Apple, Orange, Atlas, Steropes, Polyphemus, Metope, Midas, Medusa, Moses, Samson...

Tipping

The tips I receive while delivering pizza are pretty erratic. I will get stiffed on a couple orders and then maybe get $10 from some generous (or ignorant) soul. I have calculated my average several times and it always comes out to around $2-3 per delivery. I have tried to find a correlation between the demographics of the costumers and the amounts they tip. I have thought about everything from socio-economic bracket to age, ethnicity, number of pies ordered, and political leaning (usually signified by a bumper sticker on the customer's car) but have rarely seen any connection.

I wonder if it is purely coincidental though that when I deliver to a trailer I often get $5, and when I deliver to a multi-million dollar home (garage bigger than my whole house sort of thing) I might get handed a twenty dollar bill for a $19.73 total and told to “keep the change.” My favorite was a recent delivery where the total was $29.75. The woman wrote me a check for $29.50 and then handed me a quarter. Wow. I was so stunned I couldn't feel offended.

And the thing is, do I deserve a tip? I keep this job for the tips—all delivery guys do—but why is everything based on tipping? Tipping is not taught in school. Most of the time, unless I am in a restaurant or bar, I still don't know who or how much to tip. How much do you tip a bellhop, a cab driver, a valet, a hair stylist? As a result of working as a waiter, barista, and now delivery driver I am a much better tipper than I ever was. When I go out to eat I rarely think of leaving less than 20%. But why is such a significant amount of the cost hidden and/or at the discretion of the customer? This means the worker providing the service is at the mercy of the customer for a chunk of their income. I really don't think this makes the worker perform better though.

In England I noticed they don't have tipping – or at least that's what it seemed like; maybe just much lower tipping. From what I heard, the waiters and bar tenders were paid flat hourly rates, and when you bought food or a drink everything was included in the price. You could tip if you wanted, but it was not expected the way it is over here.

During many shifts, in order to keep a positive attitude, I continually remind myself that “it all averages out.” This is somehow supposed to ease my frustration after driving down a long bumpy gravel road at the edge of our delivery zone to bring some recluse in a log cabin 3 pizza pies, some bread sticks, a cinaswirl desert thing, and 2 beverages only to get molested by his wolf-like dog and receive no tip. I wonder if I wouldn't care as much if there were no tips and just a flat hourly wage. It would make the job less interesting; that's for sure.       

Starbucks

A large purple chair slowly swallows me while caffeine rushes through the blood stream of my nervous body, my foot quickly and involuntarily twitching back and forth while Frankie Vallie wails over the in store radio “...I love you baby...and if it's quite alright, I need you baby...” I take another sip of very over-roasted, slightly over-priced Arabica coffee as my eyes scan the room: Two business men talk over a laptop and a legal pad. A crying woman covers her face with her hands while the man next to her reaches over and speaks hushed cliché consolations, “...I'm sorry...I really care about you...I never wanted it to be like this...” A young stylish guy—who seems to have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to look like a disheveled rock star—sits behind a Macbook Pro and adjusts his white earbuds while shaking his finger rhythmically – perhaps in time with the track he is editing for his band. 

Starbucks is a strange environment. It's a place where people make up as well as break up, where people enjoy community and fellowship while others experience isolation and loneliness. The modern coffee house (which, in the suburbs, is basically limited to Starbucks) is America's third space (not home, not work, other place). In England they have pubs (short for “public house) where people meet up or unwind in the evenings. In American it seems we mostly have bars, which are usually not as inviting or friendly as pubs, and we meet up for caffeine and sugar in the evenings.

I am not too fond of Starbucks coffee, but at least three or four times a week I visit one of the half dozen Starbucks locations less than 10 miles from my house. Why? Caffeine addiction and habit are two reasons, but mostly it's because “Sure! Let's meet up for coffee next week.” Starbucks is the common meeting spot. Meetings with church friends, work friends, old friends, and my weekly Bible study group all take place at one of the ubiquitous green monster's many locations. Furthermore, the bearable (and sometimes genuinely good) music, the predictable (if burnt and mediocre) coffee, the amazingly addictive cake donut, and the familiarity of my favorite reading chair (sort of) are all parts of the song sung by the siren (perhaps the one in the logo) to draw me in.

When people see me drinking out of a Starbucks cup, I often worry that they are making certain assumptions. Mostly that I paid $4/5 for my drink, and that I go to Starbucks everyday. This is because I assume these very things about the people I see with Starbucks cups. The Starbucks cup seems to be a symbol of consumerism and waste (even if the cup is partly made from recycled fibers). I often want to speak out in defense against the silent critic, the stranger watching me drink out of my 8 oz (short) paper cup. “I actually almost never buy a drink over $2. This drink I'm holding now actually only cost $1.63. And I only go about four times a week. I bet you buy a 20 oz Diet Coke ($1.58) everyday you pious jerk” Honestly, I usually don't have a well of hatred for strangers (or really anyone), but my point is illustrated.

Starbucks is an interesting part of our world. I could talk further about it (the culture of employee interaction between different stores, some of the silly policies, etc.), but I will end here.

Radio, play my favorite song

I am not quite old enough to remember the album-rock era when radio stations would play whole albums, but the quality of commercial radio has gone down significantly in my lifetime. Most of my peers seem to have completely abandoned the medium in favor of iPods and CDs. "There's never anything good on the radio," they say. 

I have to disagree. Regardless of how homogenized, repetitive, and obnocious many radio stations have seem to become, I still find good stuff. Sometimes you have to flip around for a while, but there is good music on the radio. Maybe I feel this way because I like so many kinds of mainstream music. 

There are roughly three dozen FM radio stations in Atlanta. If you discount the non-English stations, country music stations, Christian radio (about twice a year I hear something descent on Christian radio), and NPR (which is great, but not for music) you are still left with a handful of good stations. My presets include two Top-40 Pop stations, one Hip-hop station, a soft rock station, an Alternative Rock/Adult Contemporary station, two college stations, two classic rock stations, and an oldies station. Sifting through the fluff and rubish (Fergie, Nickleback, etc.) I still seem to hear plenty of good stuff (David Bowie, Sigur Ros, Natalie Merchant, U2, Peter Gabriel). 

So you might wonder why I wouldn't just play the songs I want from my iPod. (And actually it is rare that I hear a good song on the radio that I don't have.) There is just something about the unpredictability of radio. Even if I put my iPod on shuffle, I am not as genuinely surprised or excited when say David Bowie's "Modern Love" comes on as when it comes on the radio in between mediocre singles by lesser artists. 

Yes. I'm basically saying that I often wade through the crap on the radio because it makes those little diomonds shine brighter. If David Bowie's "Modern Love" comes on the radio (which is not a very common occurance) I get pretty excited. I could turn off the radio and play the song from my Best Of Bowie CD or from my iPod, but of course I don't. I listen to it in lower, compressed quality via an FM signal miles way, because of an inexplicable excitement that comes from the radio format. I spend hours in the car, and I listen to plenty of audiobooks and full albums (good Jazz is particularly hard to find on the radio). But when I turn on the radio, even if the music is more lousy than good for given stretch, it's like someone is in the car with me. Even when the DJs are automated recordings, it's like there is a living, unpredictable thing sharing the audiospace. 

Oh, and I love pop. That's also a pretty genuine reason. I will never have to pay to hear Kanye West, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, and many others thanks to the radio. The radio that introduces me to fun pop singles is also responsible for making me hate and dispise them months later, but still, I like the radio. 

Q is for Singles and Albums

The arrival of digital music has meant several things for the way we listen to music and the way it is made. Musically there seems to be a return to a pre-Beatles singles culture, where individual songs are more important than full albums. Obviously it doesn't work to use a full album as the background music to  your Youtube video, or as the song that welcomes viewers to your Myspace page, or as your ringtone (it'd probably be best for phones to not ring constantly for 40-80 min anyway). Furthermore, while you can certainly listen to full albums on your iPod, digital music players are like pocket juke boxes. It's the ultimate mix making machine. How can you resist the temptation to tailor a playlist to the moment?

Artists are adjusting to the change differently. The recently reunited (sort of) Smashing Pumpkins announced recently that they plan to never record a full album again; they will only release singles. Frontman and songwriter Billy Corgan says people don't want anything but the hits. Meanwhile Jay-Z wouldn't sell his album American Gangster through iTunes because he wanted to ensure that people would listen to the album as a whole and not just download the song “Roc Boys” (I still found a way to just download the one song).   

Many songs seem to work better as singles than as album cuts though. An example would be “Take On Me” by A-ha. I bought the full LP containing this song a couple years ago, and while the whole album is surprisingly solid, that opening track feels like its own entity. If the tracks were paintings hung in a gallery, “Take On Me” would need its own room. I don't think the song is necessarily better than the others on Hunting High and Low, but it was meant to be a single. I would guess that, of the people who have heard “Take On Me,” over 99% of them heard it as a single instead of in context with the album. In fact, when I get to the end of the song my mind does not expect to hear track two of the album, Hunting High and Low. I naturally assume an 80s pop hit by another band will come on next, because the context of the song is usually a mix disc or an 80s radio show like “Retro in the Metro.”    

Because of digital music stores like iTunes no one has to pay $10 for a reissue CD of Hunting High and Low if all they want to hear is “Take On Me.” They can buy that one song for $.99 (I actually only paid $3 for the whole album, but not everyone is ready to re-embrace the turntable and vinyl records.)

I admit I have often listened through full albums that had plenty of filler just out of the principle of listening to the whole album. The assumption is that the artist put much time and energy into the whole thing, that every track is like a child to the artist. With some albums this is the case, and every track is phenomenal because the album is made up of only 12 or 14 songs chosen from the 50 that came out of the recording sessions. But then there are artists that have just one good song that they didn’t even write (an example being Natalie Imbruglia and her hit “Torn”) and the rest of the album is mediocre, even if written by the artist on the cover.

I’m not sure what I’m trying to say exactly. Listen to full albums. Feel free to listen to singles. I think the act of listening to just one song gets a bad rap, as though the listener is doing the artist an injustice. Some songs, like “Torn,” work great as singles. On the other hand, some stellar albums are ignored because all that stands out is the single. 

Perception vs. Reality

I rarely cry while watching Youtube. The other day I teared up though, while watching a clip from the show “Britain's Got Talent.” The contestant Susan Boyle blew judges and audience members away with her stunning singing voice. Everyone was especially surprised though, because Miss Boyle does not look anything like a celebrity (aspiring or other). She is not quite on the same planet as the Hollywood ideal. This normal looking, middle-aged woman was harshly viewed as frumpy and embarrassingly unattractive. So when she opened up her mouth and sang with the voice of an angel people were shocked.

I feel a glimmer of hope as I watch the cynical shallow standard of the media being exposed for what it is, even if only slightly. My brother pointed out to me the other day, however, that Miss Boyle is still only being appreciated because of her skill, her performance. She would unfortunately not be seen as a special and valuable person by the judges and audience if she were simply frumpy and had a bad voice. She would have been scorned and ridiculed publicly.

Still, a powerful moment. Check out the video here -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PPlkOyaqaQ

Obesity

This tends to be a controversial topic. There is much to qualify, bounds to overstep, people to offend. Thankfully today's post isn't really about obesity so much as it is about humans with issues (which is all of us).

I often feel remorse for quickly judging a significantly overweight person on account of their size. I'm not talking about people with a few extra pounds; I'm talking about unhealthy weight. I realize the reasons behind an individual's obesity could be anything and everything from genes and metabolisms that are especially unaccommodating to the typical processed American diet to food addiction and laziness. I often find myself assuming the later.

Even if someone's obesity is completely their fault though, I don't see why they should have to suffer socially the way they do. Obese people are viewed differently. A specific one of their imperfections is visibly obvious to everyone, and almost instantly they are judged.

What is interesting is that we all have major issues, imperfections. We lack discipline, are conceited, greedy, lack compassion, are driven to success for many selfish reasons. Many of us are just much better at hiding our vices. It seems like often times when I see someone who is obese, it's like they have a sign on them that says they have a problem. But everyone has problems. There is no sign reading "addicted to approval and performance-driven living" attached to the woman standing in front of me in the checkout line, or a sign reading "compulsive liar, gossiper, and backbiter" pined to the man socializing at the bar, or an arrow pointing to the jogger saying "this guy has a major gambling problem." No. I just see a perky, slightly stressed woman, a man talking with some friends, and a guy going for a run. But when I see an obese person I immediately "know" they are lazy and overeat (this is actually often not the case). I don't really know anything about them, but one of their problems seems pretty obvious.