Certainly, a good question. Anytime you do anything awesome, and someone gives you a hassle, you could respond by asking them:
Oh yeah? Well, what's more metal?
If you are metal, yourself, you already know exactly what this question implies. To be "metal" is to be completely and totally awesome in the awesomest of ways. Therefore, if you are being metal, you are being totally, mind-crushingly awesome.
This, however, is not the point today, my loyal and metal readers. The object today is to decipher which, of all the metal-ass things a person could be, is the most metal? The Brown Note is aware of your abundant intelligence, readers, so The Brown Note knows that while that question may be confusing, you will catch on quickly without further explanation. Let The Brown Note begin:
- Medieval Knight: From the suit of armor, the sprawling castles, to the Catholic imagery, the medieval knight is a very metal entity. This brand of metalness is upheld by bands like Candlemass, Dio, and Led Zeppelin. Now, the point here is not those bands, but the actual knight himself. Here is a guy who goes out literally dressed, from head to toe, in metal. While he's out, he conquers dragons, goes on conquest, and kills in the name of a higher power. His symbols include crosses (not upside-down), swords, lightning, and most important to the knight, a noble purpose. The knight kills because he believes he is righteous, which is pretty fuckin' metal of him, but ultimately, the knight is an underling, which is not. Conquest in the name of a monarch is most likely his goal. One thing the night does have is an incredible tale to weave. The knight also has guillotines. You can't be much more metal that a guillotine.
- Evil Monk/Dragon Overlord: This brand of metal is represented by bands like Goblin Cock and and Sunn 0))). Dragon Overlords are the arch-rivals of medieval knights, but no less metal. They wear robes, which is not only a sure sign of evil, but also of extreme metalness. Instead of slaying dragons, they conjure them. Metal points are always awarded for evil. The evil monk is interested in affecting your brain, as opposed to your heart. While knights are chivalrous, evil monks are sinister. Monks like to use magic to awaken malignant forces, and those forces will gladly fight beside the evil monk's twisted form. Twisted Form. Hmmm. Yep, it's true. Darth Vader is an evil monk. How much more metal can you get than Darth Fuckin' Vader?
- The Viking: Giant fuckin' battleships, horned helmets, and loincloths. This form of metal is represented best by bands like Man-O-War and.... well... Man-O-War. The viking, unlike the knight, is interested in killing for the viking's own sake. The Viking has no leader, save for the Gods of Asgard, which makes the viking incredibly metal. Being polytheistic is a sure sign of metaldom. The Brown Note is considering switching to polytheism, just to increase his metal quotient. The vikings drink mead, live in places called Niflberg and Isaholm, and, like the knight, fights dragons. They also have to deal with Loki, who pretty much is as metal as gods get.
- Satan: This is the man who gave birth to metal. He wants us to be happy. Best represented by Slayer and Morbid Angel, Satan decided that the best thing to do, in life, is fight God. Metal. Satan is the one who brings us fire, blood, axes, crosses (upside-down). Satan loses metal points for using psychological weapons, as only a pussy fights like that. Someone should make some T-shirts that say "Satan is a Pussy". That would be the most metal thing ever, because Xtians wouldn't buy them, they say "pussy" on them. Only people who are metal would buy that T-shirt. Satan would appreciate it. Satan holds the disadvanage of being the only entity listed that we aren't sure actually exists. Satan gave us Mario Party, Britney Spears, and Teletubbies, but he also gave us Iron Maiden, pornography, and marijuana. Don't argue, it's called "The Devil's Weed".
- Greeks/Romans: Whoa, whoa. Let's not give the greeks too much credit. It just so happens that the Spartans, who were technically greek, were as metal as fuck. The Romans, for their part, gave us chariots, crucifixion, and booze. Yes, The Brown Note knows that booze existed prior to the Roman Empire, but alcoholism was a uniquely Roman creation. The reason these two are grouped together is because they both believed in Zeus as supreme leader (if you are a knight, this is a result of Satan, which means that all metal ultimately interacts). The Greeks/Romans gain points for being so metal that all bands spout their metalness in some way, but lose points for that exact same reason. At the risk of being uber-nerdy, God of War best represents why the Greeks/Romans are so metal.
So that's that. Here's the thing. All of those entities are metal as hell. Disregarding the bands that represent them, which of those creature is most metal, or do you have another suggestion?
The Brown Note's prediction is that Satan will win, by virtue of being Satan. Beelzebub. Lucifer.
The Brown Note's personal vote is to put a Viking helmet on Joe Preston and declare him the winner.
We all know celebrities aren't real people. They are vapid, shallow, ridiculously good/freakish-looking, rich, and generally unlikable. That is unless, of course, they are wearing the correct laundry. I am not referring to Lady GaGa's stupid meat dress (one of the more unlikable celebrities today), but to the button-up, wool jersey of the correct city and colors. And for each of us that loves a man for his laundry, there is another that despises him equally.
How come not one single passerby was tempted to simply let their German Shepard off it's leash that day? Where was I?
Where is a K-9 unit when you need one?
Because celebrities aren't people, despite what they may insist, we are completely justified, nay, REQUIRED, in mocking them and hoping they fail. The protestations of intrusions made upon them, or their insistence on privacy, we all know, are farcical. Sure, at times, they may be the objects of our desires, which could very well be a part of why we hate them so, but this is not jealousy or envy. We love to see them fail, and in fact, we wish for it to happen, so that we can gloat, and be secure in the knowledge that while we (I) may be frumpier, poorer, and really not very well-liked, at least we are actually people, and we feel crappy about lots of stuff, all the time. Watching them have to deal with human feelings (even in the most shallow of ways) is reaffirming.
One of the ways we demonstrate our superiority over them is through our relationships. Celebrities divorce more, fight more, and sue each other more often and for more money, and it is this that gives us our greatest satisfaction. Sure, we don't really CARE about them, or even really KNOW them, but whenever a well-known break-up occurs, we always at least LIKE one of them more than the other. So we keep score. Hell, we do it to ourselves. How many of us have an ex that we hope dates someone uglier or more pathetic than us, next time? We conjure up images of how unhappy they are, or how they sit awake at night looking at their new significant other, pining for us. Whenever we can get invested in a relationship, and win (or lose) in it, without any real consequence, it is only natural for us to soak it up. Besides, celebrites aren't real people.
So, for your reading pleasure, may I submit to you the Brown Note's Ranking List of Celebrity Break-Ups, the winners and the losers. Enjoy!
1. Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston
Let's start with possibly the most well-known, and perhaps one of the easiest, celebrity break-up winner/loser scenarios of all-time. These two were despicably attractive and successful, and it seemed serendipitous that they would be married. Then, Brad Pitt did something that had men and women alike hating him: He dumped Jennifer Aniston (arguably "America's Sweetheart") and shacked up with Angelina Jolie. Everybody was incensed at Brad for kicking Jenny (I feel like I can call her that) to the curb, but deep-down, nobody could really blame him. Men and women alike knew that Angelina Jolie was the stuff that fantasies are made of.
Sure, women were ticked about the circumstances of the hook-up (I refuse to go into it), and probably also ticked that if Brad had to leave his wife, he should have rode in on a cloud for them, not Angelina Jolie. More than a few of those same women probably had the same feelings about Ms. Jolie being off the market. Men were ticked because it just wasn't fair. This guy, who already had a hot wife, and who we couldn't hate for it because he actually made good movies, just moved on to another incredibly hot woman, thereby ruining our chances of picking up the pieces of Billy Bob's sloppy seconds. We didn't care that she was a blood vial-carrying lunatic, or that she made out with her brother. Glance back up to the black dress shown above.
Meanwhile, tabloids ran story after story about how poor Ms. Aniston was losing her mind, couldn't find love, and was horribly jealous of Brangelina, even writing letters and starting fights. We believed it, because it is so incredibly believable. There were no two more physically gifted (in a manner of speaking) people than Brad and Angelina. This seemed like an easy win for Brad, and even Jenny knew it. However, people always love an underdog, and Jenny seemed to actually gain popularity. Women didn't hate her anymore, in fact, they felt for her, losing a spartan like Brad, and men decided that, shit, she can only go down from Brad Pitt, so maybe I've got a chance.
But then... something started to happen...
Angelina Jolie started to look like Judy Garland. Maybe all the African children she adopted ran her ragged, but clearly, something was taking it's toll on her. She's starting to look like the things Lara Croft finds in a tomb.
Meanwhile, this also started happening...
Ms. Aniston got fed up and started taking off her clothes. The headline of this magazine says it all. No kids, films that didn't necessarily make you want to scoop out your own kneecaps (if you're a man), heart-warming romantic comedies that reflect reality's boundless possibilities for love (if you're a woman), and still decidedly likable. Jenny starts appearing on "Most Desirable" lists. Then, she starts appearing on them ranked above Billy Bob's sloppy seconds. Men start denying ever being that in to Angelina Jolie. Men start lying about always having found Jenny attractive. Women still hate Jolie, for keeping that Trojan Brad Pitt away from them.
Winner: Jennifer Aniston
2. Shaquille O' Neal/Kobe Bryant
In 1997, the Lakers, for the umpteenth time in their existence, opened up their considerable wallets and wooed a giant, marble-mouthed, bald-headed, basketball monster from a less fortunate team. Oddly, and not the least bit ironically, it would not be the last time this would occur. Shaquille O'Neal was always a media whore, so Los Angeles was the perfect place for him. Just as long as he never wins a title.
All this talent, and he could RAP, too!?
While Shaq was out making high-quality films and records, not concentrating on basketball, the Lakers were trading Vlade Divac to Charlotte for a draft pick that they would turn into Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant was a 17-year-old Michael Jordan disciple who wore his I.Q. on his jersey for the first half of his career. He didn't really get a chance to start until his 3rd year in the league, in which he developed a penchant for ball-hogging and averaged 19.9 points a game. Then, it happened. In the 1999-2000 season, Shaq, Kobe, and a bunch of ham n' eggers won their first of 3 consecutive NBA titles. Besides receiving more than a little assistance from the refs in 2001 against a superior Kings team, and the fact that their competition in the Finals was a pathetically put-together Nets team, they totally deserved it. Kobe and Shaq combined to score 85% of their teams' points while taking 99% of the shots (Disclaimer: I may be exaggerating a bit), and were, quite simply, the talk of tinsel-town.
I can only think of ONE thing these two woulda rather been kissing...
Then, in a break-up that was apparently orchestrated by coach Phil Jackson, because it makes total sense for a coach to intentionally pit his two utterly dominant All-Stars against each other, Kobe and Shaq had a somewhat indescribable falling out. I mean, egos couldn't possibly be the reason, right? The Lakers made the choice to trade Shaq to the Miami Heat in 2004, and this is where the winner/loser saga really started to take flight...
Most writers at the time (do NOT let them lie to you), thought it was a terrible mistake to trade Shaq and keep Kobe. Shaq was a center, at the time considered a much more important position (different from today's NBA), and Kobe was developing a reputation for being entitled and insolent (well...). After the trade, Shaq would join forces with Dywane Wade (another terribly likable young man, these days) to bring the first championship to Miami in 2006. Kobe would, on his own, take 99% of the Lakers' shots, score 100% of their points, and shoot 40%. The Lakers failed to make the playoffs for a couple of years. Much to the delight of yours truly, the Lakers were looking rather flaccid (which, considering Kobe's vacations in Colorado, was not easy to do).
In 2008, Kobe got his ass handed to him by Paul Pierce and lost the first and only 6-game sweep in NBA Finals history. Shaq graciously wrote a rap song about it. The lyrics:
"You know how I be, last week Kobe couldn't do it without me."
Well, how could Kobe possibly, ever, come back from THAT!?
He won back-to-back championships in 2009 and 2010. Excuse me while I wipe the vomit off my chin.
Shaq took up space in Cleveland while LeBron played hot potato with the basketball whenever the clock had anything below 5:00 on it. The best part of this section is I got to insult Kobe, Shaq, Wade, and LeBron. To hell with both of these guys, I WIN!
Final ring tally:
Shaq: 4
Kobe: 5
Winner: Kobe Bryant
3. Kim Kardashian/Kris Humphries
Nope, let's just move on....
Winner: Kris Jenner
4. Bruce Willis/Demi Moore
He makes awesome movies, she makes crappy ones. They have a daughter together that most definitely did NOT win the genetic lottery and looks exactly like Bruce, so coupled with the fact that she actually IS Bruce's daughter, no man who loves his own life would ever consider dating her. Better movies, an untouched-by-a-man daughter, and being generally badass enough to never lose anything because he's Bruce Willis. This one should be cut and dry, right? Not so fast...
Rumer Willis, Daddy's little girl. Ewwww...
Demi Moore is ridiculously good-looking. She's also obviously a cougar, which means Bruce Willis doesn't fit the bill anymore. We all know cougars are awesome, especially hot ones, so even if those aren't necessarily marks AGAINST Bruce, they are certainly marks in favor of Demi Moore.
Unfortunately, we know now that Demi Moore is BATSHIT INSANE. I suppose we should have known this all along, as usually, cougar-hood is a dead giveaway. We didn't want to believe it, though. Her and Ashton Kutcher (who needs to be punched in the face RIGHT NOW) seemed fairly happy and normal. Sure, we never really believed it would last, but it wasn't outright offensive (like those Kardashian broads). Then, Ashton Kutcher, much like Brad Pitt before him, did something that every single man under the sun (except Bruce Willis) would've done. He traded in Demi Moore for Mila Kunis.
Tales of mid-life crises behavior began to flood to us. She begain writing strange letters or making strange statements, appearing incredibly intoxicated in public (with no prior history) and making a drunken fool of herself, and throwing herself at Lenny Kravitz. Nobody had any sympathy for her though, because unlike our friend Jenny, Demi Moore was never entirely likable. Sure, she gave the ladies Ghost, but since she had the terrible haircut, and there was NOTHING redeeming about that film if you are not a female, the menfolk couldn't get behind her. She tried to buy our sympathies with Striptease, but she was still married to Bruce, and in the film she was getting naked for BURT FUCKIN' REYNOLDS. Nobody wants to think about the object of their desires and Burt Reynolds simultaneously, so that little ploy failed, drastically.
The last piece of evidence needs no words:
If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does. The looks on Bruce's and Kutcher's faces are self-explanatory. Kutcher is encroaching on Willis' sloppy seconds, and Bruce had her in her prime. Bruce knows it, and not only that, Bruce is gonna go have sex with Brooke Burns when this is all over. Yippee-Ki-Yay!
Winner: Bruce Willis
5. The Beatles
There is no need, whatsoever, for me to get into the history of the break-up of the Beatles, so let's just examine the facts:
John Lennon - Became something of an American hero, which is especially strange since his legendary "Bed-In" took place in Canada, and he was British. John was unquestionably the lynch pin for the Beatles' fame, and was often the focal-point for the group, particularly in the early years. His detestable wife, Yoko Ono, is often blamed for the break-up of the Beatles, although I tend to disagree (more on that when we get to Paul). Still, she is Yoko Ono. Anybody ever seen the cover of Two Virgins? John Lennon was shot outside of his apartment in New York at the age of 40 in 1980, so it's pretty hard to make a case for him as the winner in any circumstance.
Trust me, you've seen enough...
In the interest of this contest, let's consider his post-Beatles work:
Imagine
Instant Karma
Regular appearances on The Mike Douglas Show
Jealous Guy
The Plastic Ono Band
Reason No. 5 could possibly be the finest solo work of all the post-Beatles records by any members. If you prefer that sort of thing.
Paul McCartney - In my opinion, the real reason the Beatles broke up. By FAR the most prolific writer in the Beatles, though certainly not always the best. In fact, is responsible for some of the worst trash the band ever put out. Paul often excluded the other members of the Beatles, even when still in the band. Of course, he is now known as Sir Paul McCartney, which is pretty cool, but it would be a whole lot cooler if got to wear chain mail and carry a halberd. The Norse would still rock his puny British ass in a fight. Perhaps, he gets sympathy points for suffering through a marriage to that detestable cripple, Heather Mills, who not only robbed him of a decent amount of cash (if you consider divorce settlements robbery), but convinced him to turn vegetarian. Egad! Somehow, he was the Beatle who got caught trying to smuggle pot into another country, which anyone who knows anything about the Beatles knows is more than slightly ironic.
Post-Beatles work:
Ram
Maybe I'm Amazed
Wings
Live and Let Die
Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time
He definitely LOSES points for that last one. Christmas music is the worst.
Ringo Starr - Was the drummer for the Beatles, and a good one, but now he makes his living making children's television and touring with Todd Rundgren. Decidedly un-cool. let's move on...
George Harrison - I confess to bias here, as Dear Sweet George is by far my favorite Beatle. He definitely had the hottest wife of them all (Patty Boyd) but she was disgusting and left George for his best friend, Eric Clapton. This, of course, after he wrote Something for her. To be fair, George also banged Ringo's wife, and that's just not cool. I mean, hell, he's already Ringo, why are you messin' with his wife!? In fact, it seems like there is a whole other break-up contest within a break-up contest, here. Harrison/Boyd/Clapton/Ringo. Perhaps another time...
Post-Beatles work:
Traveling Wilburys
Concert for Bangladesh
Isn't It a Pity?
Generally being George Harrison
I declined to put a fifth entry for George, because it would have to be that insipid single from the 80's that I would rather not discuss. To be honest, I don't have it in me to make a case against George, and since this contest is NOT who was the best Beatle, but who won the break-up, let's just take a good look at all the respect the man was given, and by whom, upon his passing. True power, this:
Winner: George Harrison
So, that's it for now, lovely readers. I have plenty more, but I think I'll reserve that for a part 2 somewhere down the road. Can't just give up all my good work right away, y'know? Until next time, thank you for your patronage, and remember.... Be excellent to each other.
I refuse to begin this post by speaking in platitudes about "new year, new beginnings" and other such hogwash. Fact is, no extinction level events took place, so we should all be fairly satisfied to just continue on existing.
That said, welcome to the New Year!! We all know what January means: a new class of National Baseball Hall of Fame inductions! This year's potential class has been extensively (exhaustively?) discussed, as holier-than-thou sportswriters continue to condemn and dismiss an entire era of baseball players because of suspected/admitted/proven/magical/forced P.E.D. use. A guy like Mike Piazza, who reigns supreme among catchers, all time, in home runs, is having his credentials questioned because he played in the wrong era and happens to be huge. A huge CATCHER. Because Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter, Hall of Famers who Piazza hit more home runs than, were tiny men. I don't recall ever hearing Piazza confess to anything, and I certainly don't remember his name ever being linked to steroid use. Until now, of course.
Just look at how Piazza dwarfs the rest of them!! He's hulking! He's enormous! He's... oh wait, he's just about the same size as Carter and Fisk. In fact, the only person in this photo he is considerably bigger than is Yogi Berra, who is shriveled, and 148 years old.
But I digress...
I am not here to discuss the new ballot entries, which I have already done, at great length. Let me just say that I have recently heard a few voters reconsider their votes, arguing that an entire generation of players should not be excluded. Hmm. Where have I heard THAT before?
No, I am here to prove, to the BBWAA* and beyond all reasonable doubt, that a Hall of Fame injustice has been done, and must be set right!! Orel Hershiser must be re-instated to the ballot, and inducted post-haste, before the Baseball Hall of Fame becomes as meaningful as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Scoff if you wish, but I ask you: What attributes must a player possess to be not merely considered for, but inducted into, the Hall of Fame? I posit that the following five categories must be carefully weighed:
1. Was the player dominant in the era in which they played?
2. Was the player transcendent in their popularity?
3. Does the player hold any records, and how important or unbreakable are those records?
(Obviously, owning the record for most beanings does NOT qualify a person for consideration)
4. How do the player's career numbers compare to other HOF players?
5. Did the player enjoy any significant post-season success?
I can (and will) argue that Mr. Hershiser possess astounding qualifications in all of the categories mentioned above.
So without further adieu, I present the case for Orel Hershiser's induction into the 2013 Baseball Hall of Fame Induction Class:
Hershiser's career began in 1983 as a September call-up. He didn't even qualify for a decision that season, but in 1984, he finished 3rd in NL ROY balloting after appearing in 45 games, compiling an 11-8 record and tossing 8 complete games, 4 of them shut-outs. In 1985, "Bulldog" (a nickname given to the nerdy Hershiser by his ultra-motivational manager, Tommy Lasorda, to encourage him to be more aggressive on the mound), broke through with a mind-boggling .864 winning percentage, the result of his 19-3 record, minuscule 2.03 ERA and a league-leading .3(!) HR per 9 innings.
In 1988, Hershiser won the NL Cy Young Award, a Gold Glove, and a 2nd consecutive ASG appearance, going 23-8 with a 2.26 ERA, 8 complete game shutouts (15 CG overall), and a WHIP of 1.05. The Dodgers won the World Series that year, Orel himself going 2-0, both complete games, and being named series MVP. This, of course, after being named NLCS MVP. Truly, this adds up to the most ultimately dominant and transcendent season ever, right?
Of course, one (or two) dominant seasons does not a Hall of Famer make.
The man called "Bulldog"
So, let's compare Orel's career numbers to a Hall of Famer's, just to see how they stack up. After all, isn't that a fitting measurement of HOF-worthiness? The best comparison is to fellow Dodger, Don Drysdale (I realize, at this moment, that there are some snarky, Giants-loving types out there who will take the following information and use it as evidence that, perhaps, Drysdale does NOT belong in the Hall):
Hershiser career (1983-2000): 204-150, 3.48, 2,014 SO, 3,130 IP, 68 CG, .576 Win %.
Led league in IP 3 consecutive seasons (1987-1989)
Drysdale career (1956-1969): 209-166, 2.95, 2,486 SO, 3,342 IP, 167(!) CG, .557 Win %
3-4 in post-season (although, he DID win 3 rings)
8-time All-Star, 1 Cy Young Award
Led league in SO 3 times, games started 4 times
Drysdale clearly holds the advantage in strikeouts and Complete games,while Hershiser is the obvious winner in post-season success numbers. The career win/loss records are virtually deadlocked, Drysdale winning 4 more games, but Hershiser losing 16 less (in 4 more seasons). I'll give Drysdale points for the fact that he CERTAINLY didn't need to be encouraged to aggressive (how many pitches does it take to intentionally walk a guy? One).
So, that makes THIS the clincher:
Hershiser broke Drysdale's record for consecutive scoreless innings in 1988. Drysdale, the Hall of Famer, was the record-holder. Orel broke his record. I would dare say that Orel's record is one of the unbreakable records in the game today, along with Cal Ripken's and Pete Rose's.
So we have a guy (Hershiser) with comparable, and in some ways, better, numbers than a Hall of Famer (Drysdale), who's record he broke, yet only one is enshrined? No justice!
Still not convinced? Dude, they let Goose Gossage in.
Hershiser was, as we have already established, excessively geeky. No one said geeks can't be popular, though:
The most entirely wholesome endorsement EVER.
Think of all the famous people who have made Pizza Hut commercials.
Obviously, Orel Hershiser is (was) a star of the HIGHEST order. This, along with his encyclopedic knowledge of the game of baseball, must be a reason he was asked to commentate MLB games on ESPN. Besides, if he wasn't a star, why would they let him play Celebrity Poker? So we can check the "Fame" box on our list, as well.
This is becoming almost TOO easy. How could the writers NOT vote for a man so accomplished, so great?
In fact, there is only one reason I can think of why Orel should NOT be allowed entry into the Hall of Fame:
ARRRRRGHHHHH! It burns! It burns!! Block it out of your mind, Malone. You are a forgiving man.
So remember, lovely readers, when you watch the Hall of Fame announcement on Wednesday, the whole thing is farcical. They won't let in ANY of the most deserving players, including this man, the most deserving of all. You saw it here first. Cheers.
