Thursday, September 29, 2011

Ringing. Endorsement.

Pantera. Mogwai. Earth Crisis. Boy Sets Fire. Unsane. Hatebreed. Metallica. Dinosaur Jr. Helmet. Deftones. Shellac. Spudmonsters. State of Conviction. Tool. Mushroomhead. Soulfly. Quicksand. And on.

And on.

And on.

The list of "loud" bands I have seen play live is virtually endless. And I have probably played 40+ shows in pretty "loud" bands myself.

When things get loud, I throw in some cheapo earplugs. Or toilet paper. It's not usually an issue.

So here I am, at the age where I am easily in the upper age echelon of people who see shows. Except at last week's Swans show, where I was probably the median age. Maybe younger?

And most of these guys playing are, eh, not young, at least for rock and roll. Or whatever you call the noise Swans makes.

Yet they are the first band ever to run me out of the club because of volume.

It was the first time I had seen them, and maybe I should have been better prepared, based on the past:

One of the trademarks of Swans' early period was playing at painfully loud volumes during concerts, to the point where some audience members would vomit or the police would stop the show....Since Swans' reformation, Gira has made a point of maintaining the intensity of their live show, stating that it is at once "soul-uplifting and body-destroying". He has also developed a penchant for turning off the air conditioning before Swans perform, comparing the experience to a Native American sweat lodge.

I left because it was no longer enjoyable. Because I felt sick, and because I want hearing when I'm 80. I am 100% sure that it was incredibly louder than anything I have ever heard.

In other words, I let a bunch of dudes easily old enough to be my dad force me out of club because they were playing too loud.

I have officially lost all cred and will now be only attending Jimmy Buffet cover band concerts.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Something new to worry about

Biker's Lung.

If you read the press release from the European Lung Foundation, however, it states that the study only looked at ten people: five bicycle commuters, five pedestrian commuters.

The results make sense though. I'd like to know how much of the higher black carbon levels is due to the proximity of the bicyclists to the cars (opposed to the pedestrians), and how much is due to the bicycle commuters breathing deeper while riding.

And were the black carbon levels exhibited by the bicycle commuters dangerous, or close to dangerous?

I also often wonder about the healthiness of breathing in the road salt mixture when riding on dry days in winter, after a snowfall.

I also often wonder about the healthiness of worrying about stuff like this all of the time.

That may cause more health problems than the deadly black carbon urban cyclist lung.

And that is a shame.