Kids in the Good Old Days: An Email FWD Reflection -- by Nate Winter

I received an email forward from a family member a while back. It was all about how great it was being a kid in the "good old days" and how, since the 1980s, over-protection has robbed kids of classic childhood thrills.

Having grown up in the '80s, I feel like I had a good childhood, but I guess I'll never know first hand how it compares to the happy days, the good times, or the summer of '69. I've revisited the email below and made a few notes (in italic) about what it must've meant to grow up in the good old days.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cousin Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 12:39 PM
To: Nate Winter
Subject: To All Us Kids

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO WERE BORN IN THE 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's !!

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and drank while they carried us...

Swisher Sweets and Mint Juleps mean nap time. For baby too!

Our mothers took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Show me a person who got diabetes from aspirin, blue cheese dressing, and canned tuna, and I'll show you someone who has no clue what diabetes is!

Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints... And we turned out fine!

Years later when you put YOUR kids in those same cribs with the tasty, old paint chips, that's when things got interesting.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets

Mommy needed easy access to her pills. Pregnancy was so stressful in those days!

and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.

There comes a time in every kid's life when he HAS to get to Berkeley before recess.

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.

Note to self: baby boomers are not universally considered air bags.

Riding in the back of a pick-up truck on a warm day was always a special treat...

Securing the rebel flag while daddy smokes his tires around city hall on Memorial Day must've been quite a thrill.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.

Yawn. If you've heard one old-timey sexual double entendre, you've heard 'em all.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.

Why can't the DCFS just let those starving kids locked in the attic have their fun?

We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter, and drank soda pop with sugar in it,

Breakfast looks great, Mom! And thanks for holding the blue cheese and aspirin this time. I'm watchin' out for that diabetes.

but we weren't overweight because WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!!

According to Wikipedia, "playing" is a good old days euphemism for "throwing up."

We would leave home in the morning and play all day,

Lemme guess. Uphill both ways, right?

as long as we were back when the streetlights came on...

...we didn't have to worry about a lashing.

And we were O.K. if no one was able to reach us all day.

A win-win for you and your parents!

We would spend hours building a go-cart out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

...by selling it to the new kids in the neighborhood.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendos, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, and no personal computers... WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

And when ebay showed up, those "real" friends were worth how much?

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

But as a Doogie Howser-style kid genius with a J.D., you'd have made a killing!

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

Despite what the Diagnostic Medical Journal of Mongolian Shamans, First Edition might have you believe, ingested worms do not live inside you forever. (But sniffing the penis of a young boy is still the surest way to good luck!)

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls, and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

With all that hullaballoo, it makes one wonder how many eyes there were to begin with.

We rode bikes or walked to someone's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them!

Restraining orders are funny that way.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

Imagine a world with one more spoiled kid and no uni-bombers.

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.

Laissez Faire: A Parenting Style for the Poor AND Lazy!

Our parents actually sided with the law!

Who could pass up free babysitting?!

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem-solvers, and inventors ever!

A 50-year generation!? No wonder they're so great!

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility,

I'm pretty sure all those ideas were around before 1930.

and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL! And YOU are one of them!

One of the responsibilities?

CONGRATULATIONS!

Glad I could help.

You might want to share this email with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated our lives for our own good.

That "lawyers and government" generation has always been trouble. I'd shake my fist if I wasn't typing so intently.

And while you're at it, forward this email to your kids so they will know how brave their parents were.

Brave enough to send this insightful email, apparently.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!

If I lived with my parents it would.

---------- End forwarded message ----------

-- Nate Winter

The Mystery of Dry Cleaning -- by Nate Winter

Taking clothes to the dry cleaners is a familiar situation for most of us. Even those of us who seldom wear dress clothes will occasionally find ourselves with a suit, tablecloth, or other sensitive item in need of dry cleaning. It's out there and it's pretty much unavoidable. So what is it?

In this age of ultimate consumer awareness and strict enforcement of product and service quality, it seems as though no stone goes unturned in the attempt for customers to get the upper hand on businesses and even entire industries of ill repute. Web 2.0 has given access to consumer ratings and made grassroots policing of business ethics a sword by which to live or die. People want to know that their diamonds were not a product of slave labor and that their coffee beans come from real, honest, hard-working Columbian cocaine farmers. And they want to know that $5 from their purchase of a cherry red Hummer will benefit the Bono Goofy Sunglasses Fund.

I think it's admirable that people aim to be conscious of the methods involved in the products they consume and services they patronize. It's protection from a blissfully ignorant society in which everyone believes what he or she is told without question.

Now some might say, "Why dry cleaning?" It's fair question, considering that there are probably hundreds of common products and services whose origins are a mystery to us. However, I don't believe dry cleaning is a completely arbitrary topic choice. In my mind, dry cleaning falls under a larger category called, "Laundry." Americans understand half of this category very well and the other, dry cleaning, half not at all.

Our society takes its clothing quite seriously. How we look is important to us, hence the importance of traditional laundry.

And when it comes to traditional laundry, we happen to know quite a bit. We know the various brands of laundry detergent and whether we prefer powder or liquid. We know which wash settings, water temperatures, and detergent quantities are appropriate for certain colors and materials. We know there is a wash cycle, a rinse cycle, and a spin cycle. Following the washing machine, we know that clothes go in a dryer and are then sometimes ironed, sometimes folded or put on hangers for storage in a closet, dresser, wardrobe, etc. And the average American knows at least that much about traditional, at-home washing.

Now ask the average American to describe the dry cleaning process in detail. She'll say she drops her clothes off in a soiled, wrinkled lump and picks them up a few days later pressed and hung. Somewhere in between, the clothes end up on that ridiculous monorail contraption with a 50,000-garment capacity that weaves through the dry cleaner's store like lines at an amusement park. Everything else is pretty much a black hole-caliber mystery.

It's not like we're ever at the dry cleaner for very long, but you'd think that over time we'd develop some clue as to what goes on there. But, no. When you walk into the shop you never catch them in the midst of dry cleaning. You catch them tailoring something, serving another customer, talking on the phone, or playing with the hanging monorail. But never actually dry cleaning.

So what is dry cleaning? What are they doing to my clothes that I supposedly can't do myself? Now let me be clear: I'm not asking for a chemistry lesson, here. I am looking for something far more basic: what does the process look like? Are my clothes run through a large machine on a conveyor belt? Is there some sort of wind tunnel that blasts the dirt off? Is there a Rube Goldberg-inspired series of mechanical devices involving springs, leather boots, boxing gloves, and bowling balls? Do extreme temperatures come into play at any point? Honestly, what is it?

For all I know they're hosing my clothes down with Febreeze, passing them off to someone with an iron duct taped to each hand, and hanging them on the monorail 15 minutes after I drop them off.

I think a lot of the mystery comes from the term "dry cleaning" itself. It strictly defies the "cleanliness requires wetness" rule that exists for almost every other method of cleaning. Examples include floor mopping, car washing, hair shampooing, bathtub scouring, teeth brushing, regular laundry, and countless others. These methods of cleaning require a cleansing agent (soap, detergent, etc.) and a rinsing agent (water). Both are wet. So how the hell do they clean clothes dryly? Apparently, dry cleaning is the cold fusion of the cleaning world.

It all starts when we buy clothes. If they look good, feel good, and the price is right… sold. You get the garment home and one look at the tag tells you its fate: dry clean only. When a garment falls into dry cleaning territory, it enters a shadowy realm of secrecy and intrigue. The meager "Dry Clean Only" tag controls the garment's destiny. We're beyond our jurisdiction and totally helpless. We immediately cede all our laundering and garment care acumen to the experts, the higher power, the Dry Cleaner. Maybe the garment in question doesn't need to be dry cleaned. We suspect it would turn out just fine with a cold wash, a line drying, and quick pass of the iron. But we're not willing to take that chance. The tag has spoken.

I asked an objective sample of people who dry clean regularly and found that none of them knew what dry cleaning really is. I also found that, prior to my asking, none of them had been the least bit curious about it either. I was surprised that in this age where people care more and more about eco-friendliness, ethical treatment, and fair play, no one is curious about dry cleaning. So why do we question pesticides on our produce and UV inks in our packaging, while trusting dry cleaning so blindly?

In this case, I believe it helps to consider the source of our dry cleaning: Asian Americans. It comes as little surprise that when people think about dry cleaner proprietors, they automatically think Asian American**. Obviously not every dry cleaning employee is Asian American, but it's difficult to deny their dominance in the industry. I wonder if Asian stereotypes in general have anything to do with this inherent trust of dry cleaning. In my eyes Asian American is easily the most trusted American minority. Stereotypical Asian American traits include intelligence, respectfulness, hard work ethic, and reliability.

Perhaps all of these positive stereotypes* contribute to our unquestioning attitude toward dry cleaning. I envision the first stereotype-based dry cleaning thought process from years ago went something like this: "Hmm, an Asian dry cleaner. How novel. Well, Asians are smart. This guy was probably a chemical astrophysicist in his country of origin. I bet he dry cleans a damn nice shirt."

Today the Asian influence on the dry cleaning industry is so strong that people think twice about using a non-Asian dry cleaner: "Hmmm, there's a white woman behind the counter at this place. I'm not sure she really has the doctorate level credentials necessary to press my dinner jacket. I better find an Asian dry clea—oh, there's one across the street."

So we trust the dry cleaner despite our complete ignorance with regard to what he actually does. How did it get to be this way? How did this "don't ask, don't tell" culture of dry cleaning come about? And why hasn't anyone gotten to the bottom of it?

I have a theory that brings it all together. Here goes. The tag on our garment tells us if it needs to be dry cleaned or not. Where are most of our clothes made? Asia. Who sews those "Dry Clean Only" tags into our clothes? Asians. Who runs the dry cleaning industry in America? Asian-Americans. Are you starting to catch on?

It's a self-perpetuating cycle that assures an Asian stranglehold on dry cleaning and overall garment care in America. It's genius. Well done, Asians and Asian-Americans. You make a hell of a team. You're just quietly going about your day-to-day business of monopolizing a multi-billion dollar industry right under everyone's noses. Bravo.

And because dry cleaning is a service that people rely on so heavily, who would dare to question it? Who wants to jeopardize inexpensive, high-service dry cleaning? A strike from the International Brotherhood of Asian-American Dry Cleaners would cause utter chaos. The very fabric of our civilization would unravel: business people without properly pressed shirts, gravy-stained table cloths, ties bearing the indelible mark of raspberry vinaigrette. Oh the humanity! To that donnybrook I say, "No thank you."

So that is the result of my investigation. And while we're no closer to understanding what dry cleaning actually is, at least we understand the complex socio-economic structure that keeps it a secret. And now that I know that dry cleaning's secrecy is vital to an underground conspiracy of international clothing production and care that goes back generations, my well-pressed suits and I will be blissfully ignorant on the matter forevermore.

-- Nate Winter

*In the term "positive stereotypes," positive refers to the characteristics of the stereotype: intelligence, hard-working, etc., not the use or existence of stereotypes.

** I'm told that this is the result of discrimination from a few generations ago that forced Asian immigrants out of most other work industries. Seeing opportunity in tailoring and laundry, Asian immigrants capitalized on it and the result is no further than three blocks from you at any given time.

Covers Uncovered: The 6 Rules of a Great Cover Song -- by Nate Winter

Intro

The idea behind a cover song is easy: create your own version of someone else's song. However, developing a cover that is truly great and capable of widespread recognition is not so straight forward. When it comes to covers, the greats are made, not born. And each one has a set of underlying reasons for its greatness. So whether you're a cover lover or a musician looking to hit it big, here's why covers matter and how to make yours a winner.

Cover songs are timeless because they provide two basic cultural benefits to listeners. The first and most important benefit is the reassurance of shared cultural consciousness. Hearing a good cover tells us that our awareness of the song's original version has value. Day to day we are exposed to a great deal of useless information: advertisements, celebrity gossip, bad jokes, MTVs 1 through 3. So knowing that we share the same standards of good music with others is extremely affirming. Getting an inside joke (Girth, Wind, and Fire) or identifying an obscure reference (Eddie Murphy's music career) makes us feel like we're a part of something. Identifying a cover song is the same way.

A cover's most basic, altruistic use is to honor excellent song writing. This is the second powerful benefit cover songs bring to us as listeners. The aesthetic of instruments, sound effects, rhythms, and vocal style are rarely static in popular music (and for good reason). Covering an old song in a new style shows that, at its root, the song is timeless—its chords, rhythms, and vocal melodies transcend the "there and then" as well as the "here and now."

It inspires us to know that that we were witness to great song writing through the original, and that the cover has given it renewed recognition. Covers help great songs and great songwriting live on. Like the way the 80s' legacies of hedonism and syphilis live on in Rock of Love 2.

And musicians! The benefits of a cover song for you are far more obvious. When done well, a cover song capitalizes on the existing equity of the original song. This equity could take the form of positive feelings towards the original or just enough familiarity to pique a listener's curiosity. A cover song can be your "foot in the door" to a listener's attention. All the musicians who became popular because of one good cover song are a testament to this fact. If you work hard and make an excellent cover of your own, you can meet them all at the next VH1 reality show casting call.

Defining "Cover Song"

Like anything cultural, a cover song can be defined in a variety of ways, but for the purposes of this exercise, a cover song will be defined as:

a musical recording or performance of a song by an artist other than the song's original writer or performer in which the new version is substantively similar to the original.

Substantive similarity to the original song is the key. Cover songs need to maintain their connection to the original work. The lyrics and music of a cover song must be substantively the same as those of the original. (Admittedly, "substantively" is a subjective term, but hard and fast rules tend not to last long when dealing with culture and art.)

This definition intentionally excludes certain musical trends that are NOT the same as covers. These include:

The Remix— a new version of a song created by the song's original artist. I'm talking to you, Linkin Park. And you, Children's Masterpiece Theatre.

Sampling— the use of small vocal or instrumental parts from an existing song to create a new song. Because MC Hammer was not a real cover artist, he now endures the endless suffering of Celebreality to pay the rent on his doublewide.

Lyric Copping— the combining of another artist's lyrics with new, original music. Rage Against The Machine: guilty as charged.

The Mash-Up—a song created by combining the musical elements of two or more popular songs (usually the music of one and the vocals of the another). Not that you'd know who deserved credit even if it was a cover.

Parody— a humorous imitation of a popular song, usually accomplished by putting new lyrics to the popular song's music. It's a compelling justification for the invention of internet video, but it does not constitute a cover.

The Rules

Musicians! Let's assume that you already lobotomized your original sound to make a listenable record, but you're still not the Sunday night headliner. Don't give up! A cover song lets you butcher someone else's music for a change. A great cover is your last chance to compromise artistic integrity before you inevitably vanish into complete obsolescence. Here's how!

Cover lovers! What follows is an entertaining litany of cover mentions and case studies to guide the up-and-coming bands you know and love to ultimate fame and stardom.

Rule #1: Original Song Was Popular and/or Influential
Covering a song that was never popular will not resonate with audiences. If the original song has no equity with the audience, the "foot in the door" advantage of a cover song is lost. A good guideline is to pick songs that were in the top 100 of the year they were released. (Click here for the Billboard archive of top songs from years past.) This ensures that audiences will recognize the song as a cover, and give you a chance to prove yourself (the chance you never got in middle school marching band as third chair oboe. Screw you, Mr. Tabiss!).

Songs that weren't in the top 100 could be influential or recognizable for other reasons, and may still be plausible candidates for covering. Perhaps a song reached a wide audience as part of a television commercial (The Transplants for Fructis; Sly and the Family Stone for Toyota), an internet video (Dick in a Box), or a film ("Build Me Up Buttercup" from "There's Something About Mary"; "Total Eclipse of the Heart" from "Old School"). As long as listeners recognize the cover as a cover, this rule has been followed.

Rule #2: Original Song's Popularity Was At Least 10 Years Ago
Covering a song too soon is too obvious. There's a risk that the audience is tired of the original and that they may project their annoyance on your cover.

The band Rivethead just released a metal cover of Justin Timberlake's "SexyBack." Not only is the cover not very good, but it is heinously premature. We still hear the original "SexyBack" on popular radio; there's no room for a metal cover right now. But because Timberlake's version was excessively popular, it could be great cover material a decade from now. The goal is to pleasantly surprise listeners with a familiar song they have not heard in a long time. A ten year moratorium is a good guideline.

Rule #3: Original Song's Popularity Was Not More Than 40 Years Ago
Just as a cover can be done too soon, it can also be done too late. The goal here is the same as with Rule #1: the audience has to recognize the cover as a cover to appreciate it in the right way. If a song was popular too long ago, it may no longer be a part of popular cultural awareness.

While forty years is a guideline, there are exceptions. Many Beatles tunes are over forty years old, but these songs were so popular that they are still recognizable today. The longevity of a culture's song awareness is directly proportional to the song's popularity. The more popular a song was, the longer it will be recognized. On the other hand, if the song is too popular and recognizable, you run into Rule #4.

Rule #4: Original Artist Has Faded From Popular Consciousness
If you can't be a flash-in-the-pan one-hit-wonder with your own song, you might as well steal from the best. Resurrecting hit songs from these artists is gold because their song was extremely popular and then they were promptly forgotten. It surprises listeners to hear a familiar song they haven't heard in years. This is where your Jessie's Girls, Hey Mickeys, and 99 Red Balloonses can truly shine.

AFI's cover of Nine Inch Nails' "Head Like A Hole" disobeys this rule, even though it obeys the ten-year moratorium from the song's release. The cover added little to the original and Nine Inch Nails is still very popular, receiving a great deal of radio play. As a result, AFI's version was barely a blip on the popular radar.

This rule can, evidently, work in reverse, too. Johnny Cash was an artist who had largely faded from popular consciousness until his cover of Nine Inch Nails' "Hurt" landed him a fair share of airplay and media attention. Untold numbers of Nine Inch Nails fans were upset, but controversy sells. For one single, Johnny Cash was the new Marilyn Manson.

Rule #4a: Avoid the Epic
Some songs (and artists) are so great, so popular, and so recognizable that they are untouchable. We're talking the big ones: Stairway to Heaven, November Rain, You Shook Me All Night Long, Bohemian Rhapsody, Closer, The Muppet Babies Theme Song. It may be possible to successfully cover these songs, but the bar has been set extremely high. Attempt them at your own peril.

Rule #5: Understand The Appeal Of Your Cover
Sure, you could get lucky and make a cover that is wildly popular for reasons you don't understand. But don't count on it, Lenny Kravitz. Get in touch with your analytical side to figure out why your cover will resonate with people. With this identified, you'll sound so eloquent in interviews that listeners will confuse high school radio with NPR and you can finally attract fans with disposable income. Here are some common points of cover appeal:

Relevance to Current Events—songs about war or violence, for example, can be brought back when the lyrics relate to current events or when social justice-minded emo kids feel like whining about something.

Truly Universal Subject Matter— lyrics about hope, happiness, the blues, and love will always be relevant (until digital rights management robs us of those too).

Nostalgia-- A universal topic such as love or protest is more likely to be relevant years later than a song about something very fleeting such as the popularity of an idea (Sisqo's "The Thong Song", for example). However, the song about a very specific cultural moment could find popularity in a cover because of nostalgia or irony, and not out of cultural relevance.

In 2015, for example, the popular fashion trend might be for women to wear no underwear at all. In this cultural environment, a cover of "The Thong Song" would not be a relevant comment on the under garment trends of the time, but it might be popular, however, as a provincial remnant of a by-gone era when it was fashionable for women to wear underwear at all. That would be a fun trip down memory lane before throwing your birth control on stage at the Maggot Twat reunion tour.

Pearl Jam's "Last Kiss" is another example of a cover with nostalgia appeal, but I refuse to provide the link because YouTube and TicketMaster are in cahoots. I can feel it.

Irony/Irreverence/Parody-- This one is easy to do averagely and tough to do well. Limp Bizkit, for example, released a hard rock cover of George Michael's "Faith" in 1997. The first verse and pre-chorus singing sound earnest. Durst's squeaky, almost whiny vocals expose hints of emo, leading the listener to believe the song will offer a depressive take on the song's somber lyrics (a potentially interesting departure from Michael's optimistic tone). However, when Durst wraps up the first pre-chorus by angrily shouting, "I GOTTA HAVE FAITH!" and the full band blasts into the chorus, the complete departure from expectation offers different interest in the song. At that point, Limp Bizkit's intent to bastardize Michael's pop classic shows through, allowing the listener to bask in the humorous irreverence.

Meanwhile, the listener still bears witness to Michael's excellent song writing, but does so protected by the cover's sarcastic tone. The reason this cover works, and thus became popular, is that it added new-found energy and a heavy sound to the song, while excusing the original's ‘80s cheesiness with humor. (Those are the kindest, most intelligent words on Limp Bizkit ever committed to text.)

Rule #6: Key Difference from the Original
By definition, a cover song has to be substantively similar to the original. But to make a great cover song, the new version also has to have a key difference from the original. Yes, it's a tall order, but, it's not impossible. It's what separates the men from the boys, the Nickelbacks from the Creeds, and the greats from the over-produced, messianic wannabes.

Great music, like a great joke and great sex, resists your expectations, taking you in unexpected directions. (Like 50 miles south on I-75 after the Toledo gig looking for a motel in western Ohio that lets you pay by the hour.)

While unexpected directions can easily go awry, when they work, they bring your experience to a new level. (Twenty dollars an hour was certainly a new level. And I'm not talking about the room. Hey-oh!)

Genre Translation-- An extremely popular method for creating substantive difference in your cover is genre translation—taking the basic elements of the original song and translating them into a different genre. Examples include "I Will Survive" where Gloria Gaynor's empowering disco classic became Cake's opus of alternative ennui, or DJ Sammy's dance remake of Bryan Adams' ballad "Heaven."

It's quite easy to make a song heavier in a cover. There are myriad examples of this from Metallica covering Bob Seiger, A Perfect Circle covering John Lennon, or Disturbed covering Genesis. Marilyn Manson has practically made a career out of this tactic with such successful covers as "Sweet Dreams," "Tainted Love," and "Personal Jesus."

But there are examples that go the other way. Zwan covered Iron Maiden, Johnny Cash covered Nine Inch Nails, and The Cardigans (known for their 1996 pop hit "Lovefool") even covered Black Sabbath's Iron Man, which is why the last time you heard about The Cardigans was in 1996.

One excellent example of genre translation is TuPac Shakur's "Changes," a cover of Bruce Hornsby's 1986 hit "The Way It Is." While many hip-hop songs merely sample other artists, this song is a full-fledged cover because Shakur kept the chorus of Hornsby's song in tact, used Hornsby's music throughout his verses, and wrote verse lyrics that, while different than Hornsby's, deal with the same subject matter of racial discrimination. The translation into hip-hop allows Shakur to comment on racial discrimination from the perspective of a young African American while retaining the music and chorus lyrics that helped make Hornsby's version popular.

The Musical Tribute-- Another tactic is the musical tribute—a part of the cover song that the original didn't have. A tribute part helps ease a song's translation into a new genre by introducing some new music sections that would not have worked with the original. A great example is Orgy's 1998 cover of New Order's "Blue Monday." The New Order version never had a proper chorus, so Orgy created one to give the song a more typical hard rock arrangement. The new chorus repeats lyrics from the verse and invokes familiar chords already used throughout the song. The result is a seamless transition from translated song parts into new song parts. Tool also did this in its cover of "No Quarter" by Led Zeppelin. Tool added two very heavy break down sections based on the existing riffs. Adding parts is a powerful way to leave your band's mark on an established song.

Outro

Don't take this cover advice laying down, musicians! These six rules are all you need to start piggy backing your music career on someone else's. So get out there and cover your asses off!

-- by Nate Winter

p.s. And cover your asses; credit the original artists.

Author's Note: cheers to Quietdrive for their cover of Cindi Lauper's "Time After Time," which inspired this article.

Economic Ridiculous Plan -- by Nate Winter

It's the season of green here in the good old U.S. of A. With the almighty Economic Stimulus Plan already underway, hard-working Americans like you and me are set to pick up some extra dollars courtesy of Uncle Sam. But is this notable plan the answer to helping the U.S. grow more green?

As economic models go, the "Trickle Down" theory might've been fine for the '80s, but today's society needs a more dramatic metaphor. Something like "Deluge and Evaporate." And, no thanks to global warming, that's pretty much what we've got.

Through the Economic Stimulus Plan, the IRS will distribute rebate checks to 130 million households between May and July of this year. We're promised up to $600 for individuals, $1200 for couples, and $300 for each child. The program adds up to a taxpayer windfall of approximately $152 billion. If all goes according to plan, patriotic recipients will then spend the money with American businesses and revive the lagging U.S. economy. Everybody spends, everybody wins.

While $152 billion covers a lot of ground, it's not a complete cash free-for-all. According to the IRS there are three conditions: "To receive a payment, taxpayers must have a valid Social Security number, $3,000 of income and file a 2007 federal tax return."

This makes sense, I guess. The government wants to ensure it's helping the hard-working, taxpaying Americans who fear the looming shadow of the big, bad "R" word (not "Robots"). The catch to "everybody spends, everybody wins" is that Uncle Sam can't force people to spend their rebates instead of saving or investing them. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink Perrier.

According to Advertising Age, "While many [taxpayers] plan to save the money or use it to pay down debt, the National Retail Federation estimates that about $43 billion still will make it into the coffers of cash-starved local and national businesses."

While $43 billion in additional economic activity is not exactly chump change, that means, for a $152 billion investment, the predicted result is that one-third of the funds will be used for their intended purpose. ONE-THIRD?! Maybe it's me, but that doesn't seem like such an impressive success rate. And that one-third only refers to rebate money spending. It remains to be seen if those consumer expenditures will actually bolster the economy as expected.

The IRS website goes on to say, "Millions of retirees, disabled veterans and low-wage workers who usually are exempt from filing a tax return must do so this year in order to receive a stimulus payment."

Excellent thinking, IRS, but these groups have already done their patriotic duty to the Nth degree. Are they prepared to sacrifice for their country one last time? We all know how good retirees and disabled veterans are at spending their hard-fought greenbacks, but I just don't foresee a great deal of willy nilly spending on moxie tonic and kick-a-poo joy juice. I understand the government wants to be fair to everyone, but the last thing the treasury teat needs is more selfish sucklers with no intention of a star-spangled shopping spree.

Naturally, I have a plan to improve on that measly one-third success rate. It means changing the Economic Stimulus Plan's requirements for income and tax returns to include a frequently overlooked consumer group: homeless people.

Transients, vagabonds, hobos, bums, whatever you call them, they are the ideal candidates for this plan because spending is their only feasible option. Investments are out of the question. They don't have bank accounts. And they won't keep $600 cash on them for fear it will get stolen. Get a bag lady too close to her flaming steel drum and that rebate could literally burn a hole in her pocket.

The only options left for the homeless are consumables: food, drink, tobacco, and drugs. Give a homeless guy $600 in the morning, and by 4 PM he'll be sleeping like a baby surrounded by a mountain of McDonald's wrappers with a bottle of Five O Clock vodka vice gripped into his palm. Is this a cruelly stereotypical depiction? Probably. Is this man an economically minded national hero? Undoubtedly.

And how about a strategy for the timing of these payments? I propose a plan where taxpayers ages 18 to 25 receive their rebate money in January and February instead of May and June. College kids and high school seniors eager to quell their own political complaints and do something for the good of the nation would piss away those rebates on spring break trips faster than you can say "wet t-shirt contest."

Have you ever seen a diamond-encrusted Girls Gone Wild trucker hat? Me neither, but pro-American spending like that can blow in the breeze right next to Old Glory, as far as I'm concerned.

To prevent treasonous international travel, the government could simply restrict passport renewals and hike up the rates on international flights. This way, all those self-sacrificing spring breakers end up in Vegas and South Beach instead of Cabo and St. Thomas. Best. Economic Stimulus Plan. Ever. And there'd be plenty of regrettable tattoos to prove it.

Giving the money to taxpayers who deserve it is a nice thought. Giving it to people who are most likely to spend it and thereby save the world from certain destruction is also an idea. It's a debate between a policy that subjugates American tax payers into a sugar mine-like maze of sweet deception and a policy that will actually solve the economic issue at hand by giving power to the impulsive, dark horse minorities of homeless people and college students.

Ultimately the existing Economic Stimulus Plan is a PR stunt disguised as capitalistic nationalism and a pacifier for frustrated Americans concerned about recession. On the surface it seems to make sense, but its true purpose is to keep us all blissfully ignorant while the fate of the American economy and, by extension, the whole universe spirals irreparably out of control. I can't condone it and I won't support it.

Now, where's my 600 bucks?

-- by Nate Winter