Jason (jcreed) wrote,
Jason
jcreed

-

Drove out to Columbus, OH today.

Heard a bunch of crazy stuff on the radio.
Some old late 50s songs, some dixieland, some
more recent stuff, and for a while I listened
to a bilingual english/spanish station.

It's interesting how much certain things
have permeated popular music for the last
fifty years.

Musically, the pillars are of course I-vi-IV-V
and the blues (also an amazing-grace-based chord
progression seems to be the foundation of
a lot of country)

There was one country bluesy song which held
on way too long to the five. Ugh.

("Don't miss the water till the well runs dry /
Don't miss the water till the well runs dry /
Don't miss the woman 'till she says goodbye.")

But point was, there's just a damn lot of songs
about people being bitter and happy and self-
righteously jealous about relationships.
Not all at once, of course. I think.

Not as if this is new information, or anything,
but it's strange to -hear- essentially the
same song, semantically, in a few different
styles of music and with different particulars
within the space of a few hours.

Also I was listening to some weird commercials.
There were loads of car commercials, some for
john deere equipment, a few for bowling,
and several Illinois towns had local elections
coming up and seemed pretty intensely political.
One town in Illinois had a station which had
two commercials which used the word 'bunches'
with a completely straight face.
One of the john deere equipment commercials
went something like this:
"...and you won't have to try on pants!
because here at , we sell
only quality john deere tractors and mowers.
Not pants."
I just started paying attention after they
said 'won't have to try on pants', because
it sounded so completely incongruous (because
it was) and I just -had- to know why they
mentioned it.
Quite an effective trick.

Got to a hotel in Columbus, finally. The nicer
ones required you to be 21 or older to check
in. What a fucking lame policy.
Oh well.

Twelffed some more stuff about pullbacks.
=cover= is provable, after all; actually
I proved the obvious strengthening to
equivalent subobjects rather than subobjects
equal as morphisms, from which =cover= obviously
follows as a corollary.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments