things i want to do with josh when he comes home:

+ go to an oregon coast beach
+ camp on the olympic peninsula
+ kayak on lake union
+ portland weekend
+ sunbathe at greenlake
+ seattle aquarium
+ sunset at camano island
+ yard sales and antique shops
+ secret beach path at discovery park
+ hold hands in ikea
+ watch a shakespeare in the park performance
+ bumbershoot (modest mouse!)
+ woodland park zoo
+ tulip fields
+ john steinbeck museum in the salinas valley (that might be too far to drive, but it would still be fun)
+ cuddle

the only good thing about the record-breaking heat in seattle yesterday:

it made me remember how much i love interpol (and namely this song and weird music video).

paul banks’ glasses are so seksi.

audio science.

i read on kori gardner’s blog that it has been scientifically proven that repeatedly listening to a song that you like and that is meaningful to you increases cranial activity and blood flow, which is really good for the brain. i feel like that makes sense, because the brain and body can have such an unconsciously visceral reaction to particular music (or anything really, i guess). i know that, for me, every time i hear the kinks’ “a well-respected man” i laugh because i can’t help but imagine michael cera as paulie bleeker in juno, coming out of his front door in yellow short-shorts, his legs adorably scrawny and white.

which is what kind of made me start thinking about this: i was listening to music at work today as i usually do, to break up the monotony of my work, and as i was shuffling through my ipod trying to find something good to listen to, i came across the juno soundtrack and thought ‘i haven’t listened to this in a really long time.’ and once i started listening to it, i remembered why i hadn’t listened to it in a while: just about every song on that soundtrack reminds me of my life a year and a half ago. namely, of who i was dating a year and a half ago. we went and saw juno the day before my 20th birthday, and we both cried and laughed and loved it. after we had downloaded the soundtrack, it was something that we listened to together all the time. and it’s humorous, actually, because as i was listening to each of the songs, i could see him making comments about the value of each song (namely, him saying that he didn’t like “i’m sticking with you” because the singing was so annoying). and i thought of how, for a while, our designated car song was “all the young dudes.” i can’t remember the last time that i’ve had such an overtly physical reaction to particular music like i did today.

and here’s the thing: i don’t have any bad memories surrounding any of these songs; in fact, the situations that i most strongly associate with them are ones that i look back on fondly. but when i listened to them today and revisited those memories, i felt kind of anxious and uncomfortable. so what i’m wondering is, are these songs that, in their essence, will increase my cranial blood flow and be good for me, or should i stop listening to them? or is it just disruptive to my current life because it conjures memories of things that are no longer part of my current life, and has no bearing on the healthiness of my brain activity?

natasha khan is my new idol.

[i fully intend to write a real post tomorrow, but now, i am tired and heading to bed soon in order to be more productive at the nine-to-five.]

so i know the new bat for lashes album came out a couple months ago, but i have just discovered it at long last, and i am totally smitten. natasha khan has such a beautiful voice, and even though a lot of her songs are set against dancey beats, the way she sings makes her songs sound other-worldly. and i love that she sings about mythical battles and knights and being friends with horses, and makes it sound cool.

i really dig this video of ‘moon and moon’ live. seriously, amazing pipes.

aaaaaand, this video for ‘what’s a girl to do?’ (one of her more normal songs from her first album.) but how can you dislike animals on bikes?

bless the new york times’ heart.

so i went to the high dive for the first time last week, and had the misfortune of hearing two really bad bands before hearing the mediocre band that i had gone to see. one of the bands was a female-fronted punk band, and their music was completely uninspired and sloppy. i spent most of their set outside, so as not to hear them, but i came inside at one point and they were playing an appalling cover of elton john’s “rocket man.” i was appalled; they completely butchered it and dishonored elton’s artistry, and i was wishing that there were copyright laws against live bands playing cover songs.

which reminds me: we all know that j.d. salinger is not quite dead but very reclusive, but here’s a little tidbit that the layman may not know: he’s apparently very protective of his work and fond of litigation. i read this article in the new york times that talked about salinger suing a swedish fellow for copyright infringement for a book the swede wrote that features holden caulfield, infamous hero of salinger’s ‘the catcher in the rye,’ aged 60 years from salinger’s first writing of him in the 50’s, as the protagonist. not even a swede can escape the wrath of 90-year-old salinger fighting to protect his masterpiece! amazing.

half of me applauds salinger for preserving his novel as he wrote it, despite many people’s desires to adapt it (he turned down spielberg!) or draw material from it. it shows that he has pride in his work, whereas so many contemporary writers are willing to let hollywood screenwriters mangle their words into something they think will be palatable to american moviegoers, which usually ends up the opposite: something that only vaguely resembles the original because marketability is more important than depth. the other half of me, however, thinks that perhaps salinger is taking it a bit too far. is it really realistic to think that he can shelter his work entirely from the taint of the outside world? would it be so terrible for someone else to be inspired by his work, and to draw on his masterpiece as a tribute to that inspiration that he stirred in them? as much as i loved ‘catcher in the rye,’ it is not the only novel that exists about adolescent feelings of alienation and madness. as dear shakespeare said, “there is nothing new under the sun.” holden caulfield is not the be-all-end-all of teen angst, so should salinger continue to be allowed to treat him as such? hard to say. but power to the old man and his lawyer.

another shining gem in the times is a profile on agyness deyn. yes, she’s british and a supermodel and has great hair that inspired me to chop of all my own hair in an attempt to be ‘fierce,’ but after reading this, i’m kind of appalled at how vapid she is and how her behavior perpetuates the stereotype of dumb supermodel. but what’s even more appalling than her airheadedness is that the writer seems to praise her for it, claiming that it makes her more universally marketable in the fashion world. ugh, gag me. it disturbs me that humans in the public eye can be exempt from having a personality, or even just an intelligent thought in their head, as long as they appeal to more people than someone else who’s being marketed in the fashion world. can’t we be appealed to through and enticed by distinct and strong personalities like we are with normal humans? apparently models are not humans, just a way to sell something, so i guess not.

the new york times really does have all the news that’s fit to print.

bye michael.

i have become really terrible at blogging on a regular basis. it doesn’t help that my laptop had to go the computer hospital due to a broken optical drive (which, ironically, coincided with my recent netflix subscription). it’s infinitely difficult to find the motivation to write after an 8-hour (soon to be 10-hour) workday.

since everyone else in the world has blogged about michael jackson in the past few weeks, i have a subconscious urge to say something, at least, about his death. last weekend was mj-filled: there was a zombie crawl going on in fremont in which zombified seattle-ites were attempting to break the guinness world record for how many people could dance the “thriller” dance simultaneously. i didn’t dress up like a zombie, but it was really an amazing thing to see five thousand people all dancing this dance that michael jackson made so famous. and if that weren’t enough, i decided to watch the movie “13 going on 30” (i was having a really bad day and needed to watch something cutesy and light-hearted), in which there is also a “thriller” dance reenactment. and the scene was a party where no one was dancing, and then “thriller” comes on and one person starts doing the dance, and then everyone joins in and is loving life and thinking the party is great. i feel like michael jackson’s music often has that kind of effect on people, and the fact that it has permanently permeated american culture and will continue to be iconic (even more so now) is a testament to his talent, his ingenuity and his ability to entertain. i don’t want to valorize him, because he was just a singer; he didn’t find the cure for cancer and he wasn’t super-human. he was just a human being, who was talented and whose demons were more magnified than most people’s. the thing that makes me the most sad about his death is that, despite his fame, he was a deeply unhappy person who self-medicated just to be able to make it through each day. i’ve read reports that he was administered daily shots of demerol, one of the stronger painkillers; so sad that he felt he had to numb himself with prescription drugs on a daily basis just to be able to function. that’s sad no matter who it happens to, famous or otherwise. and really, the saddest part is that his kids have lost their dad at such young ages. that’s probably one of the worst things that could happen to a kid.

r.i.p. michael.