DISQUS

우엇 시발 진짜냐!!!!!! ㅋㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷ

블로그를 열었으면 재깍재깍 보고를 해야지~

Wow! I really have to eat crow on this one, I counseled patience, suspecting that this would be resolved shortly.

What a hassle for Dish subscribers!

Though I have no means of taping matches, if I did, I would use this website! Kudos on an excellent idea!

What about adding a second score, a user score, for each game? Particularly as you build a fan base, your readers can vote on the strength of the games they've seen by the same scale. That way your readers will get the objectively derived score, and the user score, both of which could be useful, but tell you something different. Anyway, best of luck with the continued development of your site!

What is your definition of "the masses"? That still seems to be the key issue, that both I and Adam have pointed out. Basketball is probably the fourth most popular sport in the States (NFL, NASCAR, MLB). If you combine college B-Ball and the NBA, it might be more popular than baseball. I'm not sure, I have no information. Yet, millions watch it. College basketball is very popular, March Madness is one of the highest rated sustained sporting events in the country.

But either way, I don't see the relevance. We were discussing the status of American sports in the International scene (which was irrelevant to begin with), and not the popularity of these sports at home. I'm really pressed to follow the logical connections between these topics.

The NBA is phenomenally popular in China, and the success of NBA Europe has actually led to an American player leaving the NBA for Greece (Josh Childress).

Obviously it doesn't have the same popularity as football. The only sport in the world that can compete is cricket. Though, and this is among the most pedantic distinctions one could possibly draw, there is a difference between being popular and being 'most popular.' Not sure why you think not being the most popular means "NO ONE CARES" (especially with the shouting! that doesn't replace critical reasoning).

Incidentally, one of the reasons that I am so stridently pushing the standards of valid reasoning, is that as a fan of several American sports, I share the same frustration with your post as you do with those Americans who disparage football.

I appreciate taking the time to answer my questions. Your answers are subject to the exact same criticisms I made in response to your previous post, so I will just sum up very briefly.

1) This paragraph was irrelevant to your initial point, but you come back to the matter later, so I'll deal with it then. The intent of the original post was not to defend football from Americans who disparage it. As you stated, the point was English football, and the attitude they had towards the game in '66.

And for all the disparagement that Americans give to football (I too am annoyed by it), why turn around and disparage sports other people enjoy? I couldn't care less if other Americans don't like football, but I do care that people go out of their way to insult it. You are merely going out of your way to insult other sports. Why shouldn't their fans also be just as upset?

2) I'm not sure this is true, but it is at least an empirical claim, so I have no follow ups.

3) Again, I see broad, nationalistic, categorizations of whole groups of people. There is no reason whatsoever to take this seriously. They are empirical claims, based on bad stereotypes, that need factual evidence to back them up. Without it, the crucial premise, on which both of your last two articles rest, is unjustified.

This is partly based on my disdain for nationalism (and thus beyond the scope of this matter), but also on the grounds that cultures are too complicated to ever use a simple "Cultural Group X has trait F" sentence. Individualism is part of American culture, but that does not imply that the claim "Americans are individualistic" is true.

----

Anyway, I think your last paragraph is the illuminating one, psychologically speaking at least. You seem to be running together a distaste for the sport of football with other critiques of American culture. It is fair to critique American culture, but it requires a lot more subtlety than "Americans are individualists." Either way, it is fair for Americans not to like a sport, just as it is fair for you not to like American Football.

Sports are not inherently good or bad. There is no normative force to saying that people "should be fans of sport x." What is unfortunate is that people disparage the sport just for the sake of disparaging it and bringing it down in the eyes of others. I see absolutely no difference between this behavior and your last two posts.

Finally, this paragraph is rather confusing. The connection you draw, to establish relevance, is merely that you are disgusted by some behavior. Yet, there is no logical connection there. A conclusion about one has nothing to do with the other. The only connection seems to be that you have a bone to pick (and I'm trying to just be straightforward with that last sentence). It does not bear on the thesis of the post.

I went after the specious reasoning of the last post by Mr. Krishnaiyer, detailing that many of his claims were based on blatantly fallacious reasoning, or stunning disregard for factual evidence. Hank has already taken up part of that task in regard to this post. Since Mr. Krishnaiyer repeated many of the same assertions here that he made in the other piece, I am going to confine myself to just a couple of questions...

1) Why do you feel the need to slam American sports when they are not germane or relevant to the topic at hand (other than, obviously, football in America)?

2) On what grounds do you substantiate this assertion that English players play the purest form of the game?

3) What licenses your gross oversimplifications of national mentalities of Americans and Englishmen?

One final point, you noted that you wanted this piece to be about English football, which is fine. Yet, the obvious reason the comments have tended to discuss American sports is precisely because you use this piece (like others you have written) to blast both American sports and Americans. (or, the image of Americans that you work with), even when they are not relevant to the topic you wish to discuss.

Gaffer,

I have some sympathy with your position. I, after all, do not think it is right for people to do "whatever they want with their money." (Note, however, that this does not license the government to tell people what to do with their money either, something can be wrong and your own business - e.g., an extramarital affair).

I think part of my negative reaction is that I think it is missing the forest for the trees to look at how Premier League players spend their money. The issue seems to me to be that the game is awash with money, at costs all passed on to the consumer through ticket prices, television rates, etc. Within that institution I'd actually rather the players are the ones getting the money than the owners, and I'm also not "sickened" by people failing to live up to ethical standards I know so very few of us manage to. What sickens me is the general social trends in the stratification of wealth, particularly here in the States.

I sympathize with the Gaffer's point, but I think it is unfair to lay the blame so squarely on the athletes themselves. The problems here are institutional, with the amount of money in sport and that the costs are mostly placed on us, the ticketholders.

As ChrissMari rightly points out, the money is either going to the incredibly wealthy owners, or to the wealthy players. The problem, then, is in the structure.

I'm having a hard time following the bit in this argument, in two places in particular. The first concerns the whole premise, the second is more confined to your conclusions.

First, it isn't totally clear to me why you think Arsenal will be closer to the rest of the pack than to the leaders. After all, they were only four points off the pace set by United last season. I don't buy the claim that it was "lack of experience" that doomed Arsenal last season. Rather, it was a combination of two central factors - a dip in form for a few key players (particularly Adebayor and Hleb) and injuries plaguing a side that lacked depth (and thus not only were lesser players placed into the lineup, but the starters were worn down). The first happens to every team, the second is a problem that one could argue could hurt this team again.

So let us presume that the young side has not advanced enough to fix this weakness "from the inside." Still, that's a problem that existed for a side that finished 4 points off first, and 18 points ahead of 5th. For your argument, one can go about it in two ways. The first is to argue that the top two teams have gotten much better than Arsenal. The second is to argue that Arsenal has declined since last season. The first does not receive any mention, and you tend to adopt the second strategy.

Alright, but it is not really established. The players in and out are listed, but beyond that, we need reason to believe that the players lost are going to make such a substantive difference. Let's take a look at the players out:

Gilberto - role player last season, did not perform well in his limited time.
Lehmann - Reserve keeper.
Flamini - one of the better players on the squad.
Hleb - very talented player, who when on his form was excellent but had an astonishingly low number of both assists and goals.

How do the new additions stack up? I think Nasri is likely a wash with Hleb, he will not be as polished but should give Arsenal more of an edge in front of goal. Ramsey has looked excellent in pre-season, but who knows really. In first team terms, he will mostly be aboard for depth, fulfilling part of Gilberto's role (though, unlike Gilberto, he will not be able to fill in at center back, Djourou and Song will have increased responsibilities there). Bischoff cannot be counted on for anything. One also must consider Vela, who should play a role as a spark off the bench.

Ultimately I think that there is a bit of a drop off from Lehman to Fabianski at reserve keeper, a wash in attacking midfield, and a wash in midfield depth. There is then a large hole in the holding midfield role. Right now it looks like Denilson will play that role, but I'm not sure he is the right type of player to complement Fabregas, given some similarities in their styles.

This then must be weighed against the expected improvement from a side of players at their age. There are very few players who can be expected to decline this season (Gallas, perhaps Rosicky coming off injury). I certainly understand the restriction that one can only evaluate the team as it is now, and not with any presumption that they will sign someone to bolster the DM role. That's a fair restriction. Yet, what needs to be shown is that the difference between Flamini and Denilson, minus the improvement of the squad players, will move a team that was only 4 points off the pace to one closer to the UEFA cup than the title.

Perhaps that case can be made, I'm not ruling it out. But it is a lot more complicated than at first glance.

The second point I wish to raise (and I shall be brief, as I know I am rather verbose as it is) is in regards to your "bottom line." What in the world does it mean that it is "put up or shut up" time? For your personal evaluation of Wenger's approach? For Wenger himself? Clearly not the second, as there has been no indication that his position is in trouble. The financial necessity of his strategy is unclear, but many sources indicate that his approach is required (though perhaps not to the extent he pursues it) by debts associated with the building of the Emirates Stadium. That's a critical wild-card for any discussion of the merits of Wenger's approach.

The truth is that Wenger is not "playing for the future" and saying "wait til next year" all the time. He has built a side on a particular philosophy, and it was a title-contending side this past season. He is attempting to develop such a side within the financial constraints of the club, and through his clear commitment to the skills of youth. Given his policy of contracts for older players, one must conclude that the reason he targets is youthful players is not merely that they are cheap, but that he thinks they can contend at the highest level. Since his team finished only 4 points off the pace, perhaps he is right.

I'm just not really clear what you mean by those claims. Are you criticizing that strategy? Fair enough, what part? And in what way? What evidence can you marshal for the criticism? How should he change his strategy? Can it fit within the restrictions of Arsenal's budget (if any of us really know what it is)? Are you making a factual assertion about Wenger's status? To whom? You (uninteresting)? Arsenal FC (false)?

Again, this paragraph does follow a general trend in terms of controversial, baiting paragraphs given without adequate discussion. Perhaps I ought not be so critical of it. Nevertheless, the paragraph offers a common criticism, and one that deserves thoughtful consideration - and not simple proclamations without even enough discussion to explain what said proclamations mean.

Darlington,

Are we supposed to take as farce your juxtaposition of the label "arrogrant Americans" and the claim "you will never be good at football"?

Excellent post! This is one of the most thoughtful pieces I've read on this blog.

What strikes me as interesting is a persistent theme in your essay - namely that one should evaluate their reasons for selecting a team. This is particularly apparent in your consideration of teams as brands, which can be chosen based on their fit, much as we might choose a clothing style that fits our personality.

At first glance, this attitude seems above reproach. After all, applying our faculties for critical thinking and reasoned appraisal of the evidence seems to be crucial for any decision we make. Why should some decisions be exempt? If our prime criteria is to maximize the thrill of victory, we might select a different team as each season progresses, or if our criteria was identifying a team that ran itself ethically, we might change less often. Your discussion follows some of the reasons and ways we might go about looking at the issue in this way.

I think this is crucial at an early point in your article, when you are considering the nature of loyalty. You identify it as an emotional state, but then go on to suggest that one should have a reasoned foundation for this emotional state - such as a connection to the ethos of the club. For most of us in "Negativity FC" (and I would consider myself one of them, though without any vitirol!), supporting a sports team is not a matter of reasoned support.

Indeed, I think most of the reasons we pick sports teams to begin with are utterly irrational. Most of the teams I support are simply teams my father supports, that I grew up favoring. Sports teams are picked up at a young age, and I would suspect it is rare when someone approaches it with the rational mindset. These connections are then built up over time, as we watch our team win, lose and draw.

As a result, I don't think the ethos of the club is particularly relevant to the developed bonds. Instead, we are developing kinship bonds, or tribal identification bonds. We become part of a community, and our loyalty is just as much to that group as it is to the team. After all, we are dealing with a fairly abstract concept here when we talk about a team. At this level of abstraction, teams do not have an ethos. The ethos only gets involved once a team has particular personnel (players to owners). The loyalty condition becomes (almost) indefeasible.

I think this is a fair (but stunningly brief, but alas) description of why switching teams does not seem like an option for most people. I often wonder what it would take for me to stop rooting for any of my teams in the various sports I patronize, and I've never figured it out.

I'd also like to suggest that this is acceptable as well. I indicated earlier that we generally prioritize rational inquiry. As an academic, that's essentially what I do! Yet, when speaking about sports teams, there are no stakes. There are no broader social consequences of being an Arsenal fan, or a Hull City fan, or whatever. There is no "right" choice, and the use of rational means to determine the right team are a bit misleading. Instead of tracking truth or rightness, instead one is merely prioritizing a different value in team selection, one that is not objective.

Thus, when it comes to team selection, I don't think either model is subject to criticism.

Kartik,

You are laughing off empirical claims with glib remarks, such as that it is "laughable" that American sports are globally popular. And then to support the claim, you make a series of non sequiturs. I'll get to that in a minute, in order to substantiate this charge.

More to the point - it still is not clear what you mean by the English game being "the purest, most honest" game around and what the peculiarly English element is that is being lost. Is the commercialization of the game directly responsible for increased diving? Might it also be responsible for an increase in other, positive traits? These are the claims that need to be substantiated.

I think one of your motivations (if I read the first paragraph correctly) is right. I have a great deal of respect for small clubs like Wigan, even as an Arsenal supporter. The way money moves through the game leads to massive inequities. This is a much different point, however, than any notion about the "way the game is meant to be played," as it rests on a much more transparent notion - competitive balance.

That's the large point, but now I want to get specific with the indicative problems with your comments about the popularity of American sport. You open up by simply mocking an empirical claim. In your initial piece, you asserted that American sports are not popular globally, I challenged it. Your response was merely to say it was "laughable" (since the rest fails to support the thesis, I'll get there). One source I found put the figure at around 400-500 million players and spectators of the "big three" American sports, which solidly puts them in the top 10 most popular sports in the world. [Also note that table tennis is immensely popular.]

Of course they are not the most popular sports in the world, but that seems a rather silly standard. What matters is that hundreds of millions of people, in and outside of the United States, watch and play these sports. The initial claim in your piece that this was meant to support was that the frequent changes in rules for American sports are (at least part, I'll grant you a weaker claim to avoid a correlation-causation objection) the reason they are unpopular (and that football has this risk). Being among the most popular sports in the world does not support this.

I'm going to go point by point now, to point out the flaws in the reasoning used to support the conclusion. As one who teaches critical thinking classes, I guess you could say it got my dander up.

1) The first claim is that American sports support a small niche abroad. As I already pointed out, this is apparently demonstrably false.

2) The second point is that they are less popular that football. Sure, the only challenger for football's title is Cricket. Again, though, is that merely being less popular than another sport is far too weak of a claim for the role it plays in your initial argument.

3) Accusations of "over-hype" and "constant rules and standard changes" are your next sentence. Well, first, this was the initial claim you are trying to substantiate. It does not support your claim that my challenge was "laughable." This is a clear, obvious and vicious circle. Further, even if we table the circular reasoning, this is a value judgment and has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand. You are trying to substantiate an empirical claim! Just because you dislike these features of American sports (whatever, who cares what you like? Matters of taste are relative) does not mean that they are unpopular for those reasons. This same error occurs in your "stop/start..." characterization of American sports.

4) One final point about your spheres of influence point - what is the relevance of this? Many of these countries were introduced to the sports through American presence, or even domination, but also then took them up with a fervor. Football spread in large part due to the institutions in place from the British colonial Empire. I'll also refer you to Goldblatt's book for empirical substantiation for this claim.

Again, I really don't care if you dislike American sports. I find it odd, that in a country where football is so often slanted and attacked on silly grounds (being boring, etc.), fans of the game are willing to turn around and just hammer on the mainstream sports. But that's beside the point. What I find much more worthy of posting about is calling my empirical challenge "laughable" without even the facade of a reasoned substantiation for that bold claim.

I agree with much of what ProsperoDGC said, and indeed, Goldblatt's book was going to lead off my post as well!

I guess I just don't understand what exactly you mean by this English charm, and the "way the game was meant to be played." This is a phrase we see all over the place, and I generally distrust it. Original intent alone is insufficient (the game was "originally meant" to be played with many different runs, which ran the gamut from contemporary football to rugby!), and so clearly there is some additional factor there that makes one particular way of playing better. And that's the load bearing assumption, and it is not defended here.

Even worse, I worry that this argument falls into the old stereotypes of what makes the English game "English." Why in the world should there be a way of playing the game that is decidedly English, and that should remain English? There might be a set of traditional values which English players and fans have clung to, but that does not settle the normative claim that these values ought to be respected. Too often pundits fall into the trap of assuming that these sets of traditional values are internal to Englishmen themselves. These kind of jingoistic national myths are common in all societies, and are bankrupt pretty much everywhere. There is no reason to believe that you are taking this line, but this is the bad claim that pundits use to sustain the inference from the descriptive claim to the normative claim - and in this essay I do not see any way to get from one to the other. This goes back to the initial point - what is the English way of playing and why is it so good?

Which brings me to a smaller point, but which I think is relevant. Your discussion of rule changes strikes me as a bit odd. There are surely some cases of rules being created because of one or two teams, but most rule changes are designed to restore competitive balance, or to improve the entertainment value of the product. These are all going to be debatable on their own merits, but what licenses a general condemnation of these kind of changes? Again we seem back to an unargued for assumption that there is an initial state to the sport which ought to be respected.

The ire given to American sports seems rather odd in this piece, particularly since it rests on a bunch of claims about what "Americans think" and what "Americans want." American sports are very popular globally. I'd like to just rubbish these claims, as without a source any claim that begins with "large undifferentiated group X thinks" are likely to be nonsense, and it is factually false that American sports are globally unpopular (they are not hegemonic, nor dominant, but that would be a silly standard) - the MLB and NBA have wide audiences in Europe and China, and the NFL has a substantive global audience as well. Yet they seem to be load-bearing in this argument, because they prop up the claim that common rule changes are inherently bad. This is an auxiliary argument for the dogma that the classic English game is superior to modern incarnations, and it too does not seem to hold any water.

Bravo to Michael for withstanding the slings and arrows heaved at him in this thread, and nearly every other thread in his Premiership preview feature.

I have frequently been critical of Michael's essays, but it is distressing that the discussion of them has so often devolved into name calling and nationalistic shots at Americans. Indeed, the great thing about blogs is that minds from all over, with complementary and competing expertise, can come together to discuss these topics. We are all the richer for this kind of discussion. I, for example, only to get to see a few Wigan matches as I am working most weekends, and would love to hear intellectual discussion of Michael's assertions.

Here's to interesting and enlightening discussion throughout the rest of Michael's series of previews.

I am not sure about the British dialect, but in contemporary American dialects, "cancer" is commonly used in its sense of "blight." This is a legitimate sense of the term, and is tied to its etymology - it has long been used to describe an array of different medical conditions.

Thus it is not fair to accuse Michael of comparing Diouf to the medical affliction commonly referred to as 'cancer' which does ruin lives, instead, the best interpretation of the sentence is that Diouf was a bit of a blight on the clubhouse, that is, he had a deleterious effect. In Michael's idiolect (I presume), the latter reading would be more obvious and expected, and I assume that it is the reading he intended.

Switching service is a pretty drastic recommendation, at least at this stage. To do so would likely involve paying early termination fees on a Dish contract, as well as installation fees on a DirecTV dish.

This is particularly true since these kinds of situations are relatively common with niche networks. Since the face of these negotiations is the provider (that is, people do not interface with GolTV directly, only through their provider), this is one way of trying to redirect the customers ire onto Gol rather than Dish. I think it is likely that it will be resolved, as is common in these types of situation.

Who is right here? I have no idea as I do not have any information about what GolTV's demands are, or if they are reasonable or not. Maybe Dish is to blame, maybe GolTV. I have no stake in the matter.

However, I would council patience, rather than immediately switching service. If the negotiations are not resolved, then switching service might be the best option. In the meantime, however, it is likely a costly overreaction to industry negotiation.

I find it strange that Arsenal is an essential afterthought in this piece, but since it is obviously a polemic and not an argument that can perhaps be forgiven.

I think it is probably right that Manchester United and Chelsea have to be the picks for the top two spots; but that is no shock. I imagine most commentators would agree. But we have to be careful in parsing our claims. They are clear favorites, but by no means is it decided. The piece concentrates on Liverpool, so I'll talk about Arsenal to try and round it out.

The only real analysis of Arsenal to be found here is the following claim:

" Arsenal have Fabregas and Adebayor, so they also need some more world-class players."

I assume that this is supposed to read "have only" and imply that they are the only two world-class players and that two world-class players is an insufficient number. Well, let's look more closely at the club.

This past season, they fell 4 points shy of Manchester United, and led the league for long stretches. Ultimately, they had a dip in quality, exacerbated by a thin squad, and United deservedly won the title ahead of them. This, with the same number of "world-class" players as they have now (by author's definition). They lost two quality players - Hleb and Flamini, one seasoned backup - Gilberto, brought in a youngster (Ramsey), and a young attacking midfielder (Nasri).

Obviously, we cannot evaluate the team fully as it stands now, since Wenger has stated he wants to bring in another midfielder - presumably someone to partner with Fabregas and play a bit more of a holding midfield role. If we presume that this signing performs at a slightly lower level than Flamini, and that Nasri performs at a lower level than Hleb (both for arguments' sake), the club might be a bit worse off. They will have slight downgrades at two starting positions, and the depth problems will remain. On the other hand, if they have more players fit this season (van Persie, Rosicky, Eduardo), then Nasri in particular will have less of a burden placed on him to replace Hleb. Further, with such a young team, one might reasonably expect more players to improve this season than to decline.

So where is Arsenal FC? Depending on who else they sign, they look a lot like they did last year. They are betting on the improvement of their young players with another year under their belts. Given that they were only four points off the pace last year, it seems they have a reasonable shot at challenging this season, particularly if they have better luck with injuries this season and players continue to progress.

Does that make them the favorite? Of course not. As I stated at the outset, United and Chelsea are and should be the favorites for the league title this year. One does not predict where teams will finish under the presumption "if things go their way." However, one can predict an interesting title challenge under that presumption. Arsenal (and also Liverpool, though I have not focused on them here) have the players to win the league.

Will they? If I were a betting man I'd ask for longer odds than on United or Chelsea, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

This reminds me of last summer's embarrassment regarding a fake story. I believe the link was Palacio to Arsenal, and a blog wrote that the deal was as good as done. One paper picked it up, without attributing any source (nor interviewing the blogger), and soon it was all over a host of papers which referred back to the original paper!

as offensive as FOX's comments may be, I don't agree that anyone should 'stop' them from making their inane comments. We still cherish free speech in our country- probably something else Mrs. Obama is proud of.....

Vedran, I am not sure I understand your claim that American television does not want soccer to succeed because it would drain viewers from other sports. Why should that be true? Do different sports really compete with viewers that directly? It seems that ESPN is always promoting other programming, trying to bring in the viewers from other demographics (since the fanbase for American football and baseball, etc. are pretty solid) with other athletic competitions, and to bring viewers from their mainline demographics on for more television (such as their increased focus on Arena Football).

Indeed, some soccer leagues look like an excellent opportunity for ESPN to produce sports programming that does not compete with mainstream American sports. Since the best leagues in the world are overseas, the matches are often at "odd" times for American audiences. Other than perhaps weekend afternoons, soccer does not compete with baseball (and of course, ESPN cannot, by contract, carry baseball at those times), and it competes with only some NFL action (which ESPN does not carry).

ESPN has a lot to gain from promoting soccer, and I'm not sure why we should suspect them of colluding directly or indirectly with mainstream American sports to keep soccer ratings down.

Is only Andy Gray open to charges of immaturity for name-calling? It is a standard we should all hold ourselves too.

I was a neutral watching the match, and I think there is merit to both sides here. Many of Gray's criticisms I did find accurate - namely the defensive nature of Italy's play and the poor work by the officiating crew (particularly in stopping play twice for injuries which did not merit such a stop). He was also, however, exhibiting a bias in his calls - particularly noteworthy was his "good luck Cesc" immediately before Fabregas' took the final spot-kick.

I enjoyed reading this blog in the Encore last week. You even inspired me to go online and listen to some of Flight of the Conchords' music. I must admit, it is very funny!

However, you stated that their music is mostly original, "and that's where they differ from novelty music legend Weird Al Yankovic, who merely rewrites the lyrics to already popular songs."

That is a popular misconception of "Weird Al" Yankovic's music. While it is true that "Weird Al" Yankovic is well-known for his hilarious parodies of popular songs, he also writes quite a lot of original songs as well. In fact, at least half of the songs on all of his albums are originals, and they're really good, too!

"Weird Al" has other talents, as well. Besides directing his own music videos, he has directed videos for other music stars such as Hanson, Ben Folds and the Presidents of the United States of America.

He has had the same band for about 27 years. Besides performing and recording with "Weird Al," each band member is an accomplished musician in his own right. They have recorded their own solo CD's, and they are really good!

It is easy to dismiss "Weird Al" Yankovic as that wacky guy with the crazy hair and Hawaiian shirt who does silly parodies. Don't underestimate Al or his band. Buy his latest CD , "Straight Outta Lynwood." Go see him in concert in Gilford, NH on July 15th.

You'll be amazed.