Hey, Pachuco!

The Kings of Gangster Bop are back.

Actually I’m not sure they were ever gone. It’s just that I haven’t seen or heard much about Royal Crown Revue since I saw them open for Chris Isaak at the Santa Barbara Bowl a few years ago.

When I noticed they were going to be playing the Mint in L.A., I instantly stopped what I was working on (okay, I’ll instantly stop what I’m working on for almost any excuse – it’s called procrastination with a capital “P”) and ordered tickets.

My dear ex once embarked on a futile effort to rejuvenate our marriage by suggesting all sorts of new couples activities which we might try. It got to the point where when I saw that look in her eyes and her mouth start to open I would just shout out “No swing dance lessons!”, which is sort of ironic because I do like swing music, and particularly many of the bands which came out of the early 90′s swing revival. Royal Crown Revue is often credited with having started that revival, and is probably the most successful and well known of those bands.

That they were playing the Mint was particularly enticing. Royal Crown Revue is a big band, literally and figuratively, and the Mint is such a small club I wasn’t even sure you could fit the whole band in it, let alone manage to get them all up on the tiny stage.

When I last saw them in Santa Barbara, I was somewhat disappointed. Maybe it was because of the larger venue but they seemed somewhat low key and subdued, like someone had slipped them a xanax mickey.

No such problem on November 18 at the Mint. The band came out smokin’, playing one old favorite after another with high style. In the tiny, dark Mint it was like taking a time machine back to the old band boxes on LA’s Central Avenue in the 40′s and 50′s. Or it least what I imagine those old clubs were like, given it was before my time.

Front man Eddie Nichols was in fine voice and form. Saucy Jennifer Keith, who featured Royal Crown Revue members Mando Dorame and Daniel Glass in her own High Society Boys Band, has now joined Royal Crown Revue as it’s female vocalist. Adding a female vocalist to the gangster boppers works well. It’s now guys and doll, rather than just guys. Part torch singer, part Andrews sister and a hundred percent eye candy (nothing wrong with a nice pair of gams in seemed stockings), Ms. Keith is a talented singer who integrates well with the band, soloing on some songs to give Nichols a break, and joining him on others in a throw back to the days when Steve and Eydie and Louie and Keely wowed them in Vegas.

Speaking of Vegas, why hasn’t some smart Steve Wynn type booked these guys a long term casino gig? Put these guys in a lounge and let them wail along with the tumbling dice and clanging slots and they’d pack them in. A lot of us were too late to swing with Frankie, Deano and Sammy but Royal Crown Revue can certainly carry the torch.

Royal Crown Revue has one more show at the Mint – December 2 -before taking off on an Australian tour. A guest “celebrity” hosts each show at the Mint. On the night I was there, Evan Seinfeld, late of HBO’s prison drama OZ and the bands Biohazard and Spyderz, served as MC and did a couple of songs – very well I might add.

For $15 bucks, this show has to be the best deal in town, and today it got even better. If you’re on the Mint email list you can get a free ticket (or one to several other shows coming up there) by contacting info@themintla.com. Put “Free Tix” in the subject line.

You’d be stupid to miss it, pal. You dig?

Photos copyright Steve Neimand

I’m camped out near the Dodger dugout before the game with my trusty Canon 40D, when I notice the nice looking fellow loitering near the railing. “Hey!” thinks I, “isn’t that the carpenter guy from Home and Garden Television?” (Okay, so once in awhile I watch something other than sports ).

I snap off several shots of what I believe is the tv tool belt model, whom I later google to identify as Eric Stromer.

Only in later comparing my photos to those on Google Images, I’m not sure it’s Stromer after all. Kind of looks like him, kind of doesn’t.

Then TMZ, hot on the trail of the Fightin’ McCourts, runs these shots of Jaime McCourt and her alleged new love interest. For those of you not following this fracas, the McCourts own the Dodgers. Or at least Jaime McCourt says they do (despite the fact she allegedly signed an agreement saying the team is 100% her husband Frank’s). Frank McCourt says he’s the sole owner of the team (despite miles and miles of film and tape over the last several years in which he proclaims Jaime co-owner of the team). Anyway, there’s a major power play going on for ownership and control of the Dodgers, with Frank firing Jaime for among other things, what he alleges was “inappropriate behavior with a subordinate”. For those of us who don’t speak corporate that means “boinking the help”.

I don’t know if Jaime did or did not do what Frank is accusing her of, and in her defense, the only one in the Dodger organization who was not subordinate to her was Frank, whom apparently she no longer wished to engage in that kind of behavior with, appropriate or otherwise.

Anyway, Dodger fans rightfully fear that the acrimonious dissolution proceeding between the McCourts may leave their beloved team in ruins. Which raises another question. Is Jaime’s new love interest destined to become the Dodgers’ Bartman?

Who is Bartman? As usual I direct your attention to Wikipedia:

“In the eighth inning of Game 6 of the National League Championship Series, with Chicago ahead 3-0 and holding a 3 games to 2 lead in the best of 7 series, several spectators attempted to catch a foul ball off the bat of Marlins’ second baseman Luis Castillo. One of the fans, Steve Bartman, touched the ball once it crossed into the stands, disrupting a potential catch by Cubs outfielder Moisés Alou. If Alou had caught the ball, it would have been the second out in the inning, and the Cubs would have been just four outs away from winning the National League pennant. Instead, the Cubs relinquished the lead that inning and then lost the game. When they were eliminated in the seventh game the next day, the “Steve Bartman incident” was seen as the turning point of the series…

“Bartman had to be led away from the park under security escort for his own safety as Cubs fans shouted profanities towards him and others threw debris onto the field and towards the exit tunnel from the field. News footage of the game showed him surrounded by security as passersby pelted him with drinks and other debris. Bartman’s name, as well as personal information about him, appeared on Major League Baseball’s online message boards minutes after the game ended.[11] As many as six police cars gathered outside his home to protect Bartman and his family following the incident.[3] Afterwards, then-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich suggested that Bartman join a witness protection program, while then-Florida Governor Jeb Bush offered Bartman asylum.[1]”

As previously stated, I only know what I read in the papers. I don’t know for a fact if Jaime McCourt does or does not have a love interest. If she does, I don’t know if the relationship developed before or after she and Frank separated. Even if it was before, she may be rich, she may be very smart, but she’s human. She’d be no different than the endless sea of others who have given in to temptation while technically pledged to another.

But If the McCourt dissolution does in fact wreck the Dodgers, is it possible that Dodger fans may come to view the source of that temptation as the west coast version of Bartman?

So of course I was very curious to see the guy that allegedly came between the McCourts. And when I took a look at the photos on TMZ, it occurred to me that he also resembled the guy that I had photographed standing near the Dodgers dugout. If it wasn’t Eric Stromer, could it be Jaime’s guy?

I went back to my photos for another look. It does look like the guy I photographed could be the same guy seen in the TMZ photos. Or maybe it is Eric Stromer. Or someone else entirely. I need forensics I don’t have to make a definitive call.

These pictures were taken before the separation became public, but if it turns out that this nice looking fellow is in fact Jaime’s new squeeze, then you have to marvel at the balls the two of them had to both be parading around together a few feet from the owner’s box that Jaime shares with Frank during the first game of the National League Division Series.

Article and photographs copyright Steve Neimand

There’s no free lunch.

Unless you want all the Mojo Nixon you can eat.

Prior to this morning, I was the proud owner of zero Mojo Nixon songs. Didn’t have a single track in my iTunes menagerie. Never downloaded even one of his songs, legally or otherwise.

I had heard of Mojo Nixon, just never much paid attention. My familiarity with him was mostly as a result of occasionally listening to him on the Outlaw Country channel on Sirius Satellite Radio. Truth be told, he’s not even my favorite there. As far as Outlaw Country goes, I’d have to go with Dallas Wayne and the fetching Elizabeth Cook as my favorite hosts.

Who is Mojo Nixon? According to Wikipedia:

“Mojo Nixon (born Neill Kirby McMillan, Jr., August 2, 1957 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina) is an irreverent American musician, known for playing psychobilly music. He has officially retired from playing live and recording, though he does host several radio shows on Sirius Satellite Radio and has come out of retirement for one-off events, such as an event to support fellow irreverent musician Kinky Friedman’s candidacy for Texas governor.”

A little farther down in the Wikipedia article is this:

“In October 2009, he announced his “unretirement” on his website with the release of his album Whiskey Rebellion, a collection of previously unreleased tracks he claims he had found in “an old shoe box full of cassette tapes” under his front porch.[2]. To promote the CD, he announced the temporary free downloads of the CD tracks and several of his solo albums (and albums with Skid Roper) on Amazon.com, along with a tour of several Texas locations. In a press release, Mojo stated,

“Can’t wait for Washington to fix the economy. We must take bold action now. If I make the new album free and my entire catalog free it will stimulate the economy. It might even over-stimulate the economy. History has shown than when people listen to my music, money tends to flow to bartenders, race tracks, late night greasy spoons, bail bondsman, go kart tracks, tractor pulls, football games, peep shows and several black market vices. My music causes itches that it usually takes some money to scratch.””

You can’t beat FREE. No one in my family ever met a good deal they didn’t like. It doesn’t matter if you don’t need it. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want it. It’s the thrill of the bargain. If the price is right, you take it. You might find a use for it later. Cheap Thrills might be the name of an old Janis Joplin album, but its also the mantra I grew up with.

Did I mention that Mojo Nixon has made a ton of his albums available on Amazon for FREE?

Anyway, it’s a new day here as far as my collection of Mojo Nixon tunes goes. As stated, my Momma didn’t raise no fool. If its free, hand it over. I downloaded all of Nixon’s stuff I could from Amazon this morning. Haven’t listened to any of it yet, but the song titles are certainly intriguing:

How about “Debbie Gibson Is Pregnant With My Two Headed Love Child”?

Or “Jesus At McDonalds”?

Or “”What’s Up Judge Judy’s Ass”?

Or “Stuffin’ Martha’s Muffin”?

Then there’s one apparently written specially for me, “Destroy All Lawyers”.

You thought only Warner Brothers put out Looney Tunes? Guess again. I’m not sure you can dance to this stuff, but you might laugh your ass off.

Giving everything away free seems awfully anti-capitalistic. If this were the 50′s, Uncle Joe would no doubt be seeing Red and brand this Nixon a communist. But I suppose there is a method to Mr. Nixon’s madness.

Apparently only the brain damaged and people who get iTunes gift cards pay for music these days. The music industry (and others) has fought a losing battle with the internet. People expect virtually everything on the internet to be free. The trick is to monetize free.

From what I gather, most musicians don’t make money off their records these days. They do make money touring and selling t-shirts and coffee mugs. Mojo probably wasn’t going to sell a whole lot records anyway. By giving it all away free, people (like yours truly) who otherwise weren’t going to buy a cd might take one free. If they like what they hear, they may become fans. And they might go to a concert. And buy a t-shirt. Or actually pay for an album down the road somewhere. The first hit is free, but if you get hooked you’ll pay later.

So giving away his stuff free doesn’t make Mojo a communist. He’s just a capitalist with some new marketing tricks up his sleeve. Sounds like a win-win situation.

While it lasts you can get your free Mojo here.

Jaime and Frank McCourt have announced they’re splitsville. No, I’m not related. But I am a 30+ year season ticket holder of the Dodgers, the major league baseball team the McCourt’s happen to own, and what will no doubt be the most prized asset in their divorce, assuming they don’t kiss and make up. So I, as many Dodger fans will, stand to be traumatized by what happens to the team as a result of love gone bad.

Dodger owners Jaime and Frank McCourt, in a intimate moment from a few years ago, have recently announced their split. No truth to the rumor of a love triangle involving Tommy Lasorda, left.

For years Dodger fans were spoiled by the steady, paternalistic ownership of the O’Malleys. Walter O’Malley was very shrewd, and certainly never met a buck he didn’t want to make, but he did swing the sweet land deal for Chavez Ravine that resulted in the Dodgers moving west in 1958, and he did get one of the greatest baseball parks of all time, Dodger Stadium, built. He treasured it like the jewel it was (and still is) and for the most part provided good teams in a great ballpark at very reasonable prices. When his son Peter took over stewardship of the team, he seemed to always recognize and acknowledge that while the team belonged to his family, the entire city of Los Angeles had a very large equitable interest. He was one of the few owners of a professional team to seemingly put what his team meant to his city ahead of his personal interests.

When baseball economics got crazy, and no doubt scared by the labor strike in the mid-90′s, Peter O’Malley determined that it was too risky to have his family’s entire wealth tied up in one professional sports team. He tried to cross-collateralize his investment by also acquiring a football team to play in a stadium to be built next to Dodgers stadium, which would have provided the investment diversity he needed to continue to own the Dodgers, but was blocked by councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas who was insistent that any new football team in Los Angeles play in the aging Coliseum, which happened to be in his district. Ever mindful of his civic responsibilities, Peter O’Malley backed off rather than start a fight at City Hall and reluctantly concluded that without the football team he would have to sell the Dodgers, which he did.

For those of us fans who consider ourselves part of the Dodger family, this began what feels like a bad trip through a twisted foster care program. Instead of the paternal O’Malleys, mom and pop was now Fox, the giant media conglomerate. Decisions were now being made by temperamental televison executives with no major league baseball experience, whose idea of running the team was to trade its best and most popular player, Mike Piazza, without consulting the team’s general manager to send a warning to the rest of the players to be reasonable at contract time or be gone.

If Fox proved to be a parent whose decision making skills were somewhat lacking, at least they had enough money that they didn’t have to jack up ticket prices. Enter the McCourts, who bought the team from Fox for what is estimated at 450 million. Unfortunately the McCourt’s didn’t have 450 million laying around, and if memory serves they borrowed most of the money for the purchase from Fox. An early version of the nothing down deals which have led to calamity in the mortgage industry. The McCourts secured the transaction with their major asset, some prime parking lots in Boston, from whence they came (hence the L.A. Times’ T.J. Simer’s nickname for Frank McCourt as “The Parking Lot Attendant”). The McCourts eventually sold the parking lots to pay Fox, but from the day they bought the team there has been rampant speculation that they really couldn’t afford it and lots of questions about whether they have enough remaining assets to adequately operate the Dodgers and keep the team and its stadium at the high level they have traditionally enjoyed. In a sense, they were taking on the risk that Peter O’Malley had sold the team to avoid.

Frank McCourt chats with Dodgers fans at a recent game

To their credit, the McCourts nixed proposals for a new stadium downtown near Staples Center (which they probably couldn’t afford anyway and for which there would be no public money) and announced that the beloved Dodger Stadium wasn’t going anywhere. They invested a lot of money in updating Dodger Stadium (or at least the Field Level, where the most expensive seats are), and managed to spend enough money – or acquire good players from other teams for nothing but minor league prospects – to keep the team competitive.

Ticket prices were another matter, however. It was as if mom and dad had suddenly announced that not only were you going to pay rent for your room, your room was now considered to be in the high rent district. Until the recession/depression hit last year, the McCourts substantially raised ticket prices every year. Recently it was announced that the first three rows in the seats closet to the Field would now run $200,000 a season for four seats. My own seats in the Loge went from $30 a seat to $50 a seat – a 66.66% increase – in two years. It was clear that the McCourts did not have the resources of a Fox corporation to subsidize baseball operations. In order to meet operating expenses and make enough profit to support themselves and the four expensive houses they would buy in the LA area (I’m still not sure why two people need four homes unless they’ve each got a plaything stashed) the money would have to all come from the baseball business. They jacked up ticket prices and plastered advertising on what seemed like every square inch of Dodger Stadium. When Frank ordered the names removed from the back of the player’s jerseys for one season I was sure it was because he wanted to replace them with more advertising. They also started marketing all kinds of bizarre money-makers like sleep overs at Dodger Stadium, yoga classes with the team’s right fielder and $500 a pop events where you could take batting practice and have a meet and greet with a couple of Dodgers.

So what’s to become of us now? Recently a divorce forced the then owner of the San Diego Padres to sell that team, in order to equitably divide the marital assets. According to an article in the LA Times, Frank McCourt’s lawyer claims there is no chance that he will sell the team. The same report however, puts the value of the Dodgers at $722 million, with the value of the four houses in the neighborhood of $82 million. Clearly one McCourt can’t take the team with the other keeping the real estate.

Jaime McCourt at Game 1 of the National League Division Series, a few days before the break up was announced.

This is where things could get really interesting. How interesting may depend on the McCourts themselves. No gossip yet on what caused the split, but my guess is there must be some very messy and titillating details about to spill (don’t you just love a good scandal?) Why else would the McCourts have chosen the eve of the National League Championship Series in which their Dodgers will be playing the Phillies for the right to represent the National League in the World Series to suddenly announce their split? Couldn’t this have waited until after the play offs? I’m sure Major League Baseball can’t be too pleased with their timing. It’s as if Dad decided to use his toast at his daughter’s wedding to announce he’s coming out of the closet now.

Things have apparently been bad between Jaime and Frank for awhile. The McCourts use to be at almost every game together, but this season my wife often commented that Jaime never seemed to attend anymore. I noticed her at Game 1 of the National League Division Series, but instead of sitting next to her husband Frank, she sat several rows in front of him. I also thought it funny at the time that instead of something Dodger blue she was dressed all in black, like she was in mourning. Maybe she was. Anyway, surely they could have waited another couple of weeks to go public with the news. The fact that they didn’t leads me to believe they chose to go public before someone else did.

In any event, the McCourts have always been highly sensitive to bad publicity. So sensitive that since arriving here in LA they’ve gone through public relations specialists faster than Joe Torre does bullpen pitchers. They tend to toss PR guys or gals out with the bad news and bath water. Hopefully this aversion to negative publicity will provide incentive to both of them to keep things civil and cooperate on a fair settlement that will provide a minimum of disruption to the team.

Unfortunately, when going through a divorce a lot of people don’t want fair – they want blood. If parting is such sweet sorrow, revenge is the sugar coma to end all sorrow. Having handled a few divorces in my time, when you get two very angry, irrational people going through a divorce all you can really do is step back and let your billings go through the roof.

How foolish can people going through a divorce be? I remember handling a divorce for a soap opera actor who came home from a movie shoot to find that while he was gone his wife – a soap opera actress – had literally backed up a truck to house and stripped it clean. Every last item they owned left in the back of that truck. She also cleaned out all the bank accounts. She even took his residual checks out of the mail, deposited them and took that money too.

I assured him that I would get his half back (California being a community property state). No he insisted. He didn’t want to get hung up in a long, messy and expensive divorce. All he wanted was a paper-mache statue that was his before they got married and wasn’t worth anything. It just had sentimental value to him. If she would give that back, she could keep everything else.

I told him that I didn’t recommend he do that, but if that’s what he wanted I would call her lawyer and make the offer. Her lawyer was thrilled. “Shouldn’t be a problem!” he kept chuckling. “I’ll highly recommend she take the deal. Let me call her and get back to you.”

An hour later he called back.

“She won’t give it back.”

The McCourts are both smart and shrewd business people. Jaime is also a lawyer, so she ought to know something about the futility of litigation. Often there’s a prevailing party in name only. If the real gains and losses are totaled, both sides lose. Conversely, if both sides are smart, civil and rational, they can make the best of a bad situation.

Will the McCourts? So far its not looking good. Reportedly on paper Frank is the sole owner of the Dodgers and all the real estate is in Jaime’s name only. Could be that they have some arrangement already in place, but Jaime doesn’t strike me as dumb enough to let Frank have a 700 million plus asset in return for some houses worth about 15% of that. Could be they set it up that way as some sort of protection against creditors in case they got in over their head.

In any event, Frank is supposedly now claiming the team is 100% his, and Jaime’s begging to differ. At this point you have to vote messy if you were predicting how this split is going to go. I never learn. A few years ago when I heard about the tv show “Celebrity Justice” I wondered how where they were going to find enough celebrity dirty legal laundry to fill a daily show. Turns out there’s as many or more troubled, rich famous people as troubled, not so rich not so famous people. Frank and Jaime are just the latest to the party.

If they do duke it out, they stand to not only embarrass themselves but the team, the town and the fans. The only one who may benefit (aside from their lawyers) might be Clippers owner Donald T. Sterling. Sterling is usually the poster boy here in LA for an owner with too many cents and too little sense, and has his own well documented legal troubles. Having the Dodgers collapse while Frank and Jaime squabble over ownership and control can only elevate his status.

When ownership and control of the team is in doubt, paralysis sets in. There may be delays in retaining key people, and those key people may decide not to wait around to see who wins or who loses. They may opt for more secure opportunities elsewhere. Players may not be able to be retained or free agents pursued because its not clear who can negotiate or authorize the contracts for them.

The best hope for us fans maybe for them to agree to sell the team. Of course we’d want the buyer to be someone like the Angel’s Arte Moreno, as opposed to another Fox. We don’t want the cure to be worse than the cold. Hey, maybe Scott Boras can use some of that money he’s fleeced from the Dodgers over the years to buy the team. It’d be nice to have him on our side of the negotiating table for a change.

Otherwise I don’t see how this can work. Even if the McCourts decide to keep the team as co-owners, there’s likely to be friction and factions. There will be Frank loyalists and Jaime loyalists. Ah the corporate politics that may portend. As an example, a few days before the announced break up, a Dodgers VP thought to be highly valued by the organization was told he should start looking for work somewhere else. His crime? Apparently he had aligned himself with Jaime. In short, it would be hard to picture the organization as having unity and clarity of vision with an ex-husband and wife sharing ownership. The more hostility there is between them the less likely everyone will be ho-ho-hoing it up at the annual Christmas party.

And if one of them agrees to let the other buy them out, where does the money come from? Maybe a new partner. Or maybe a loan. And if it’s a loan, you know what that means. Ticket increases across the board to pay for love gone bad.

Photos copyright Steve Neimand

So in evaluating this camera, perspective is required. This is not the camera you would go to for your best work. It is not the same package of everything you have with your DSLR and collection of lenses shrunk down to something the size of a couple of packs of gum. It is a tiny point and shoot camera that easily slips into your pocket with room to spare that does way better than the average point and shoot. In other words, it’s a top performer for the junior varsity but its not ready to hang with the varsity.

Here’s the reasons I wanted one:

1. I wanted a small camera I could keep in my pocket for daily use. What a lot of photographers call a “street shooter”, something you can pull out and use to grab shots of whatever you happen to run into during your day.

This camera is certainly small. I’ve seen a few people refer to it as “chunky” and they must consider Ellen Page to be fat. This is tiny. I was surprised at how small the box it came in was, and even more surprised when I found the camera in the small box. My first impression was it wasn’t much bigger than one of those old minolta spy cameras. My previous point and shoot camera was the Sony W300, which most people considered slim and stylish, and this camera is smaller in all respects than that. Side by side the WX1 seems slight smaller than the W300, but looking at it alone it looks like a tiny toy camera. I gave the W300 to my wife, and when she caught a view of the WX1 her reaction was “But yours is so much smaller.” She was thrilled when I gave her the W300 but now has taken to calling it a hand me down. I went from hero to goat. As they say, size matters.

2. Stealth factor – I wanted a camera that I could sneak into places that don’t allow cameras.

You could drop this baby into the front pocket of your levis and still have room for a decent game of pocket pool. I can easily get it, a wallet and even a cell phone all in the front pocket of my jeans. Alone in the pocket, it scarcely makes even a bump that a security guard might notice.

3. Low light capabilities – I dislike using a flash and wanted something that could take good pictures in natural light, and could function well in dark places.

The low light capabilities of this camera are astonishing. The camera can basically see better in the dark then you can. Lots of the pictures I took in dark rooms look way more illuminated in the photos then they were in reality.

This picture was taken on a dark street with no flash. ISO 800.

This picture was taken in a pitch black room with only the light from a computer monitor for illumination. ISO 3200.

Because it seemed to be everything I had been searching for in a point and shoot, I went ahead and ordered this as soon as Amazon had them available. Because they were not yet widely available, there were no hands on reviews by the usual photography sites and blogs. While waiting to get the camera, I would check Amazon every day to see if anyone who had actually used the camera had put up any reviews yet. The initial few reviews were alarming. People who said they wanted to love the camera didn’t. The gist of their complaints seemed to be that the camera took good pictures in low light (although a few didn’t even agree with that) and crappy pictures in good light. Sample photos that people began posting on Flickr also didn’t look too hot. Because of this I regretted ordering the camera so quickly and almost just sent it back to Amazon without even opening the box.

I decided to try it for myself before deciding whether to send it back, and found it to be much better than the initial reviews had painted it (and subsequent reviews on Amazon now seem to be swinging towards the positive).

I do have to agree that a lot of the shots I’ve taken outdoors in bright sunlight seem a little overexposed and dull, but I’ve also had this problem with my Canon DSLRs when set on automatic. In any case, I’ve found that with the WX1, all you have to do is open the photo in Photoshop and click “Auto Contrast” and the problem is instantly corrected. A reviewer on Amazon has also noted that you can get more vivid, warm outdoors photos from the WX1 by using the Program mode and moving the White Balance setting from Auto to Flash. I tried this, and with the White Balance set to Flash the pictures basically look the same out of the camera as they do after I’ve run them through Photoshop and hit Auto Contrast. Another user mentioned in some of his posts that turning off the DRO in the menu greatly improves outdoor photos.

The argument that most people just want nice looking snapshots right out of the camera and don’t want to mess with Photoshop is valid, but those are probably not the people who are going to be interested in this camera anyway. The camera’s not cheap and those people would be very happy with the snapshots they could get with an inexpensive entry level point and shoot.

In any event, after a couple of weeks with the camera, my recommendation for everyday daylight shots is not to use the Intelligent Auto mode, but rather put the camera in the “P” or program mode. This will allow you to fix the ISO at 160, which is fine 90% of the time. Decrease the EV setting by .07. Most shots will now come out great. If you want warmer colors put the white balance on Flash, or increase the saturation a little after the fact in Photoshop. As noted above, turning off the DRO also seems to help.

As for claims that the WX1 photos come out noisy, I don’t agree. Even the low light pictures don’t seem to have a noise problem. This is not to say they are DSLR quality, but they don’t look bad at all for a point and shoot.

Other positives:

4. A nice 24mm wide angle lens, which lets you get very close to things and is also great for cramped indoor settings, buildings and landscapes. Speaking of getting close to things, the macro feature springs into gear automatically when you stick the camera within an inch or two of an object.

5. Fast on, little lag time between shots unless you’re using the Burst, Panoramic, Anti-Blur or hand held Twilight modes which take a little time to process.

6. HD Video. I never really use this but nice to have in case I ever catch the You Tube bug.

7. Panoramic mode. In this mode simply press the shutter and sweep your arm and the camera creates a panorama all by itself. You don’t have to take a bunch of single shots and try to stitch them together later with a photo program. The only drawback is that it sets the exposure for the area you start, which can make it difficult to get a good one in uneven lighting. For instance, in the shot at Dodger Stadium below, the starting point was under the overhang in the stands, where it was dark. When the camera swept across the well lit field, it was overexposed.

Examples of the Panorama feature on the new Sony WX1.

8. Battery life seems pretty good.

So what’s not to like about this camera?

1. No manual controls.

The W300 had full manual controls, and I wonder why Sony couldn’t have included them here and really made this a top of the line point and shoot. Many serious amateur photographers who would otherwise love this camera won’t even consider it because it doesn’t allow them the ability to manually control aperture, shutter speed, etc. This, along with the lack of RAW capabilities, will probably keep this camera from competing with the Panasonic LX3 and upcoming Canon S90.

As note above, there is a limited work around. Using the Program (as opposed to Automatic) Mode allows you to set the ISO between 160 and 3200, which will force the camera to use a slower or faster shutter speed. You should note that if the DRO is on, you can’t use a ISO higher than 800. Turn it off if you want to go higher. You can also put the camera in High ISO mode, which allows for faster shutter speed.

Canon’s soon to be released S90 seems to have become the great new hope for shutterbugs longing for a small point and shoot that takes great low light photos instead of the WX1, primarily because it not only also has a fast lens and improved sensor, but also manual controls and raw capabilities.

2. No viewfinder.

I read somewhere this morning that 25% – soon to be a third – of the population are aging baby boomers. If they’re anything like me, they have a hard time reading a restaurant menu in dim light, or for that matter anything else a few feet from their face without reading glasses. Translated to small point and shoot cameras, it’s almost impossible for an older pair of eyes to clearly see what’s on a 2.7 or 3 inch LCD screen on the back of camera, even if bright sun isn’t washing out the screen. Most of the time with the WX1 I really can’t make out what’s on the screen, because to me its all out of focus (the problem is my eyes, not the camera). I just have to sort of aim the camera in the direction I want and estimate the framing and have faith. The W300 had a viewfinder, which was why I bought it. Sure wish this one did too, even if they had to make the camera a little bigger.

3. Mediocre zoom.

The WX1 has a 5x zoom, which would seem to be better than the standard 3x zoom found on a typical point and shoot. In practice, because this camera has such a wide angle lens to start with, zooming out 5x doesn’t seem to get you any closer than a 3x zoom on a point and shoot without a wide angle lens. In short, this camera won’t get you close to far away objects, you’ll have to use your feet. It also seems to me that when you max out the zoom at 5x the photos get a little soft.

4. Beware of moving objects.

The low light modes are great for stationary objects, but in some of the shots I took where people were walking they blurred.

With the camera set in Program mode I ran after the dogs and couldn’t get a single shot that wasn’t too blurred to be any good, except when I had it in burst mode. I would expect it would be the same for parents chasing their kids (mine are in their 20′s and won’t run from me anymore, so I can’t test this).

The camera supposedly has Motion Detection, along with Face Motion Detection, which in Intelligent Auto mode supposedly adjusts ISO sensitivity and increases the shutter speed when movement is detected, reducing blur in moving subjects and faces. It also has a pet mode which is suppose to do the same thing for things that move on four legs. Maybe I wasn’t doing it right but they didn’t seem to help much.

The best bet for action and fast moving subjects with this camera seems to be the burst mode, which rips off 10 shots one after another when the shutter is pressed. I didn’t get a chance to test this at a little league game or AYSO tournament, but I did finally get a couple of stop action shots of the dog with it. If you could control the shutter (which you can’t) you might be able to get this camera to better stop action. On the other hand a recent review of the upcoming S90 indicated that even with a fast lens and manual controls (allowing you to set the shutter) it wasn’t fast enough for action, sports and kids. I guess we have to face facts. At the current state of the art, no point and shoot camera is going to do a great job in this area.

All in all its a cool little camera which does things most point and shoots don’t and also doesn’t do things most point and shoots don’t. In case you’re wondering, it never went back to Amazon although I do wonder if I might regret not having waited for the Canon S90 when that arrives.

More sample shots with this camera are below:

]]> http://cultureshlock.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/toy-time-hands-on-with-the-new-sony-wx1/feed/ 0 cultureshlock DSC00176 DSC00096 DSC00138 Dodger Stadium Panorama DSC00339 DSC00334 DSC00274 DSC00226 DSC00177 DSC00175 DSC00172 DSC00141 DSC00134 DSC00108 DSC00105 DSC00102 DSC00100 DSC00088 DSC00066 DSC00059 DSC00038 DSC00033 http://cultureshlock.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/an-appreciation-of-charlie-steiner/ http://cultureshlock.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/an-appreciation-of-charlie-steiner/#comments Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:31:17 +0000 cultureshlock http://cultureshlock.wordpress.com/?p=56 Continue reading →]]> It was hate at first sight. The first time I laid eyes on Charlie Steiner he was one of those ESPN Sportscenter Hosts, and like the rest of them seemed full of himself, too hip for the room, a glib remark or pithy pun more important than the substance of what was being covered.

Charlie Steiner talks baseball with the Dodger faithful

I was one of the few who wasn’t happy with Ross Porter being let go as the Dodgers’ radio announcer after the 2004 season. Yes, Porter was primarily a stats geek, often filling the space between pitches with more numbers than an Indian Casino bingo caller. Listening to Porter my eyes would sometimes glaze over like I was back in Algebra 1 (a class I failed five times), but he had a folksy, down to earth style and seemed to have a true appreciation of the game. He also was one of the rare Dodger radio personalities at the time who was honest enough to admit on the air that the team sucked when it sucked. When a team stinks – as it did often during Porter’s tenure – that can be a breath of fresh air.

So when Porter got let go I thought he got a raw deal, and hearing that Charlie Steiner would be taking his place didn’t make it any easier to swallow. I spend far too many of the dwindling hours I have left on this planet watching or listening to Dodger baseball. And now I was going to spend a good portion of them with Charlie Steiner?

I couldn’t have been more wrong. Four years later, I say without hesitation that Charlie Steiner is a great baseball play by play guy. In fact I enjoy listening to him as much as Vin Scully.

That last sentence will probably be taken as sacrilege by the vast majority of Dodger fans, to whom Scully is a god. Scully is Dodgers baseball, and rightfully so. If you gave a word association test to Dodgers fans, I’ll bet most of them would answer “Dodgers” with “Vin Scully”. He is the last remaining bridge back to the team’s history in Brooklyn, having started with the team in 1950 and then moving west with them to Los Angeles in 1958. He has as much knowledge about baseball as anyone who has every played or managed, and there is seemingly no Dodgers tidbit or anecdote of which he does not know or have instant recall.

With his distinct voice, melodic delivery, and master pacing, as he expertly intertwines the on field action with the nuances and ironies of the game and infinitely entertaining stories, there are few pleasures in life more enjoyable than a couple hours of baseball with Vin Scully. It’s like turning back the clock – you’re a youngster again in a magical place with your kindly old father or uncle as your guide (only one who doesn’t take up half your seat, fart his way through a bag of peanuts and make every other inning trips to the restroom because of an enlarged prostrate).

Vin Scully remains the Dodger deity

Recently the Dodger faithful were sent into a panic when Scully hinted next year may be his last behind the mike. How could he possibly be replaced? As far as baseball announcers go, there is Vin Scully and then there is everyone else, and everyone else couldn’t carry his jock as they say in the lingo of sports.

Well don’t stroke out Dodgers fans, but I think Charlie Steiner can.

Steiner, it seems to me, is the next best thing to Vin. Growing up in New York, the Brooklyn Dodgers were his favorite team. The Dodgers aren’t just a job, they’re part of the fabric of his life. Like Scully, he is very literate, seemingly never without a reference when needed, able to cull from an endless supply of baseball or life stories to illustrate a point. Like Scully he has great perspective. There is always more going on then just the game being described. Always an awareness that this game is part of something larger. Part of a series, part of a season, part of a career, part of the history of the sport, part of something that has been a significant part of your life.

As does Scully, he calls a game with the neutrality of an umpire. He’s not a homer, rooting for his guys. He appreciates the game, and that includes both teams. A good play is a good play no matter what the colors of the player making it, a bad play is a bad play, and he says so. If anything, Steiner may be slightly less diplomatic than Scully in protecting his employer. When Mannywood was recently revealed to be drug infested, Scully had little to say about it, and what he did say seemed to be couched in the vaguest of terms. Steiner seemed to be more direct in acknowledging it is what it is.

Like Scully, he has a pleasant voice, which – unlike many of the current breed of baseball announcers – he is able to use in more than just a stoic monotone. He understands what voice inflection is for, and uses it masterfully to sell the point of what he has to say. He can pause for effect with the best of them.

He has the quick wit of an improvisational comedian. Recently, just before the deadline for play-off eligibility, the Dodgers made several trades. They acquired Ronnie Belliard from the Nationals, then announced during the 7th inning of the next night’s game that they had just acquired Jim Thome from the White Sox and John Garland from the Diamondbacks. Steiner quickly quipped on the air when the trade for Thome and Garland was announced:

“So yesterday the Dodgers acquired Ronnie Belliard, he’s been with the team less than 24 hours, and with the addition tonight of Thome and Garland, he’s already a grizzled veteran of the team.”

Quick thinking. Concise. Funny. Ironic. Entertaining. Typical Charlie Steiner.

I hope Vin never goes, but if he does the Dodgers already have the next best thing.

All photographs copyright Steve Neimand

So I’m sitting there, near the end of “Inglourious Basterds” thinking about what a bunch of morons all these Nazis are, as they cackle in glee while watching a cartoonish Nazi propaganda movie in which a heroic Third Reich soldier single handedly wipes out the American troops, blowing them away in one over the top cinematic shot after another.

Suddenly it occurs to me. Hey Stupid!

You and all these other popcorn munchers crowded into this theater have also been cackling in glee at what is essentially a cartoonish American propaganda movie in which heroic American soldiers not only wipe out Nazi’s in one cinematic overkill after another, but then scalp them like this was a 50′s John Wayne western. Who’s the fool now? I seem to have stumbled into a celebrity propaganda death match between Joseph Goebels and Quentin Tarantino.

Earlier in the day I had heard Tarantino on Howard Stern’s show mention he was not short on confidence. Having seen the movie now, I can say he was being modest. Not only does he not lack confidence, he has more chutzpah then the entire entourage of Jewish kamikaze commandos he features on screen.

To make his movie work, Taratnino has essentially re-written history. We’re not talking about your typical revisionist history, which involves a re-interpretation of facts, but rather a completely preposterous made up fantasy. It’s as if I was claiming to have had Scott Baio’s love life. Just never happened.

And that’s what screws up an otherwise very entertaining movie. Belief can only be suspended so far. I can buy (and thoroughly enjoy) Brad Pitt as a nasty Ozark Ike. Pitt’s Lt. Aldo Raine is every bit the single minded ruthless violence machine that Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurh was in “No Country For Old Men”, only here he’s playing for the good guys which is suppose to make it okay to root for him.

I guess I can buy a Jewish Wild Bunch. I’m not sure why only Jewish guys could be on Pitt’s elite swat team, but since this is a revenge movie, and Tarantino likes to do things big, I guess its really big revenge if the guys torturing the Nazis are all Jews. And I suppose I can go along with the fact that you need a borderline psychotic goy to convince these Jew boys to put down their dreidels and slide rules and start kicking ass.

What I can’t buy is completely re-writing history so Tarantino can have his big ending. Did you know that Hitler, Goebels and all the German High Command actually died all together in a movie theater in Paris watching a Nazi propangada film, and that was what ended WWII? Me either.

Near the second plot point, as it becomes clear that Hitler and all his brass will be together in a theater for the grand opening of Goebel’s latest piece of propaganda, and that multiple forces are working to try to blow up the theater with them in it, I became completely distracted trying to figure out where Tarantino could possibly be going.

The obvious big climax, which would be to have the good guys succeed in blowing up the theater and have Hitler and his gang bite it big time, couldn’t happen because it didn’t.

If the Nazis manage to escape, there’s no big ending, and we’ve spent 2 ½ hours building to nothing.

Boy, this must be some trick ending I kept thinking. I know Tarantino’s good, but how’s he going to pull this off?

The answer is he doesn’t. Having written himself into a corner, he just rewrites history to make his movie work. There’s no big trick ending – unless you consider pounding a round peg into a square hole with a sledge hammer a trick. Black becomes white, up becomes down, just because Quentin says so. It’s like the Dictator in Woody Allen’s “Bananas” when he declares “From now on, everyone under 16 years of age… IS SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE!”

After blowing up Hitler and the boys, Tarantino drops one last cherry a top his confection, swinging for a great closing line, ala “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn” or “Rosebud”. A final, single line that hopefully movie buffs will repeat through the ages.

Just before we black out and the credits roll, Tarantino has the Pitt character carve a swastika into the head of the Nazi villain. He then turns to the camera, smiles and says “I think I’ve just created my masterpiece”.

Sorry Quentin, you haven’t.

A week or so later, I heard Tarantino on Sirius Satellite radio again. This time he was playing songs that he listened to while writing and filming “Inglourious Bastards.” He saved for last the song he said was his biggest influence while making the film. The title?

“My Prerogative”.

His prerogative I guess, but it doesn’t work.

“Duh.”

This morning when a similar ad appeared picturing Baron Davis and with the same tag line, my reaction was “You’ve got to be kidding me. That’s their ad campaign? Joe Blow is playing to win? Isn’t every player in the NBA? Isn’t that essentially the whole point? They’re trying to win?

I find it stupefying that the Clippers apparently paid nice money to some slick advertising agency and the best they could come up with is “Rush out and buy a ticket folks, because by golly we’re trying to win”.

At least last year’s tag line, “Play Loud”, assumed they were trying to win but implied that they would do so in an exciting, thrilling manner. I guess after a 19 win season they decided to go back to basics and promise just to try to win. Later they can add style points.

I’m seriously wondering if the Clippers decided to save on the marketing budget and this new slogan is something they came up with in house. Maybe one of the ticket reps blurted it out trying to make a sale and they all thought it sounded good.

It’s moves like this that reinforce the image of the Clippers as a joke. This might have been the lamest advertising campaign in the history of professional sports, had not it not been for a recent campaign of the New Jersey Nets to sell tickets by giving away jerseys of the opposing team’s stars. Good move. Have all your fans wear the colors of the opposing team.

Where’s Don Draper when you need him?

Everyone wants to be cool. I’m going to go way out on a limb here and theorize that most us who are regulars on blogs like www.clipsnation.com have a long history – and hence strong tolerance – of not being cool. Most of us were probably the guys in high school who, had we dared to ask out one of the popular girls, would have been stared at with revulsion usually reserved for a Mumbai street beggar or like we just microwaved her cat. Following along with Simmons’ use of movie references to illustrate his points, I cite the 1978 classic “Animal House”. Most of us wouldn’t have been cool enough for the Omega house, and would have found ourselves with Belushi and Matheson in the reviled Delta house. Later we would grow up to be Clipper fans.

The late Jack Kent Cooke, then owner of the Lakers, undertook a specific plan to make the Lakers cool. In 1965, Cooke purchased the Lakers and moved them from the Sports Arena to the Forum. He changed their colors from royal and light blue to the flashier purple and gold. He also reportedly gave away the court side seats to movie stars like Doris Day, reasoning having the beautiful people in the building would make it the place to be, and that the rest of us not so beautiful people would pay for the privilege of partying with them. Sort of like an early version of a Las Vegas club giving big bucks to Paris Hilton to stop by its New Years Eve party, so the regular folk will pay top dollar to get in and be able to say they spent their New Years eve someplace happening. Wearing pointed party hats and blowing through a noisemaker just seems so much cooler if Paris Hilton is there, as opposed say, just you and a couple of buddies sitting around your depressing apartment.

Which brings me finally to the point: what will it actually take to ever make it Hip 2 Clip?

Well it seems to me that one thing we need is a celebrity make over. I appreciate the support Frankie Munoz has given the Clippers over the years, but (1) he hasn’t been around the last couple of seasons, and (2) I’m not sure he’s even still a celebrity. He may have passed from that cute child actor stage to the can’t get work as an adult stage, ala Jerry “the Beaver” Mathers and McCauley Calkin.

Likewise, Billy Crystal only shows up once or twice a year. Other than Matthew Lillard (of “Scooby Doo” fame) what does that leave us?

(Adam Sandler seems to be wondering what he was doing at this Clippers game last year)

There are occasional celebrity sightings at Clipper games. Over in Section 115, I have personally had Lucy Liu sitting right in front of me and Jackie Johnson (the Channel 9 weather girl) and her enormous breasts sitting right behind me (thank you God!). Last season I spotted David Carradine sitting across the way in Section 116. Unfortunately a few months later he was found dead hanging in a closet wearing fishnet stockings and a wig (there’s no proof watching the Clippers play drove him to it), so he won’t be coming to anymore games. I’ve also spotted Duane “The Rock” Johnson and Adam Sandler at games, but they seemed to be slumming it. The Rock took off at half time and Sandler is normally only at Laker games. Must have got his schedule mixed up.

This as opposed your typical Lakers game, with Jack and Denzel and Andy and Wahlberg and Flea. When Baron Davis joined the Clips last year he was asked if we could expect to see some of his Hollywood pals, like Kate Hudson, at the games now. He smiled and shook his head. “Nope, they’re all Lakers fans”.

I therefore propose a celebrity recruitment drive for the Clippers. Does anyone know any celebrities? The only one I know is Donny Most, and he won’t go. Anytime I offer him Dodgers tickets he’s free, and everytime I offer him Clipper tickets he’s busy.

(Donny Most has no love for the Clippers)

Maybe we could form a committee to spot up and coming Hollywood talent and cold call their agents to get them out to Clipper games before they become Laker regulars. Maybe DTS will donate some of the unused court side seats for this purpose, instead of dragging, er upgrading, season ticket holders out of the stands to fill them. Maybe Baron can beg Kate to come to a game, and bring Alex. Or maybe he can use his position as a partial owner of the Conga Room to pressure the acts playing there to attend a game or two as a condition of being booked.

Maybe we should focus outside the Hollywood mainstream. Look for cutting edge people in the arts who reek of cool while shunning the traditional trappings of celebrity. What if Andy Warhol and Edie Sedgwick had been regulars at Clippers games? Hey, how about someone like Captain Sean Doe?

(All together now: WHO?)

I had never heard of Captain Sean Doe either, until last week. I went to a bar to hear Wayne Hancock play, and the opening act was Joe Buck Yourself, who brought a long his friend Captain Sean Doe to sing a few songs. Apparently Captain Sean Doe is the lead singer of a psychobilly band called Throw Rag. Well Captain Sean killed, but the most amazing thing was his between song patter when he took the opportunity to announce to all present that he was a die-hard fan of the Los Angeles Clippers because “like you can sit court side for 30 bucks”. Those of you who are not from around here have no idea what courage that took. In a Lakers town like LA, most of us won’t admit to being Clippers fans at a dinner party. To stand on a public stage three months before the NBA season even starts and proclaim your love for the Clippers takes balls as big as Texas.

(Captain Sean Doe and Joe Buck Yourself)

Trust me, Captain Sean reeks of cool, from the long sideburns to his peacock sequined jacket. And he’s got more tattoos than anyone affiliated with the Clippers since Cherokee Parks. Captain Sean has exactly the type of street cool we need to start making the Clippers hip. A great start would be to bring in Captain Sean to sing the National Anthem opening night and then have him sit court side in that sequined peacock jacket.

(My choice to sing the National Anthem opening night for the Clippers)

All photographs copyright Steve Neimand

I also spend a fair amount of time traipsing around LA flea markets, which is where these photos came from. For as long as I can remember, the Dodgers have had an annual Hollywood Stars game, featuring a game of old fashion hardball between celebrities and sportswriters/sportscasters before one of the Dodger games.

As the definition of “celebrity” has diminished, so has this annual event. Now a softball game played after the Dodgers game to rather sparse crowds, with an occasional exception the game features B – D list personalities and girls who hang out at the Playboy mansion. To get the idea, click here for photos from last years game.

What surprised me about the photos from the flea market find was seeing big time names for the time like Dean Martin, Nat King Cole and James Garner among the participants.

I also didn’t know that the Angels, back in the early 60′s when they shared Dodger Stadium with the Boys in Blue, had also had a Hollywood Stars game. When in Rome, I guess, do as the Romans do.

I think these pictures are from 1964, as Jimmy Piersall appears in one. Piersall was traded to the Angels with only 20 games left in the 1963 season. I doubt this promotion would have been at the end of the year, so likely it is from the 1964 season when he was with the team for the whole year. Anyway, for connoisseurs of baseball and Hollywood history, enjoy.