Blake Noble

Still working on overhauling Win7's appearance on my new ultrabook. The taskbar needs some more tweaking and Rocket Dock needs some new icons.

So ... how much for the Pat? Although I'm not sure if it could tow a small runabout boat like this:

I'm not sure what you mean. The two Darts I've checked out didn't seem terribly cheap inside. I don't think the Dart is a good yardstick to use here. There probably will never be standalone SRT dealerships. I'd say you could probably buy the Barracuda at any Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep dealership when it debuts, but the availability of the car in your area will probably depend on how many Challengers your local dealership sold a month. It's a similar approach that Chrysler's taking with the SRT Viper and the Dart. Regarding the SRT brand, I'd actually go so far as to say its errorous to call it its own separate brand. I prefer to look at it as a sub-brand of Dodge with its own marketing identity, like Ram Trucks. Ram Trucks are all vinned as a Dodge, and I'd say the SRT Viper will be too. Ditto the Barracuda if its sold as a SRT. Its just a gimmick to pull in new customers who asscociate the Dodge name plate with the stigma of rednecks, cheap pilsner beer, and NASCAR.

Nah. Finally got the fundage for a new laptop. It's a Sony Vaio T13 ultrabook with one of those nifty new Ivy Bridge Intel Core i5 processors. EDIT: Did I say Ivy League earlier? Hah.

Okay. I'm back. Hi.

Here's my understanding: The Barracuda more or less indirectly replaces the Dodge Challenger. Challenger and Barracuda production overlaps (as Challenger winds down, Barracuda ramps up). The Barracuda may debut for the 2014 model year, meaning we could see it as early as sometime this coming year. Challenger production ends in model year 2015. The Barracuda may be aligned with Alfa's next coupe and the replacement for the Dodge Avenger. It won't be retro, just have a few retro cues with an overall modern flavor. It may not be branded as a Dodge and could be the next car to be sold under the SRT brand.

So, long story short, you're butthurt, eh? That's fine. Like it or not, that means I did something right. This article wasn't intended to be a "misguided shot across the bow" at Chrysler. I've owned Chrysler products in the past and I've been pleased overall with all of them. That said, this article was meant to roast an engine that, according to the research I did, was ... let's say, rather inadequate in the early stages of its life. I mean, who honestly turbocharges a four-cylinder engine, decides to cut a corner by not installing an intercooler and expects it not to overheat? One of my earliest car-related childhood memories is of my aunt's Turbo I-powered LeBaron convertible boiling itself alive going up a mountain road. Yes, every automaker makes boneheaded decisions. I'm not denying that. But I'll be damned if that wasn't a dumb and bureaucratic decision on Chrysler's part.

I get another chance to swing by and this thread turns into a discussion on inbreeding. Jesus, guys. Who misplaced the Ritalin?

Well damn. If I had known you were in my neck of the woods Drew, I would've at least tried to meet up to say hello. Anyway, I'm working on snagging a Macbook Pro or, at the very least, a decent Ultrabook as soon as I square away a round of new issues with my student loans this week. I just wish I didn't have to deal with dental surgery on top of it.

I wish you would stay, but I can understand where you're coming from. Godspeed, Cort. And good luck.

Since the Cadillac XTS and Buick LaCrosse are very closely related, perhaps we should start viewing the upcoming Opel Omega as LaCrosse-based and not necessarily XTS-based. Also, when you look at it that way this news isn't really that shocking. It's been rumored for sometime now that Opel would do something with the LaCrosse.

Although most of you probably were too busy to notice, I've largely been absent since May. Long story short, my laptop died and I've been too broke to buy a new one. That should change in the coming weeks and I'll be slowly stepping back in to the old swing of things and contributing articles again. For those of you that listened to the recent podcast, you'll know that I've landed a new job as a part-time pharmacy tech and, with any luck, I should be on track to attend college this fall. Until I have a new computer, I'll mainly be contributing to the site through the podcast since my iPhone works very well for Skype, so if you enjoy my annoying banter be sure to listen. In other news, I'm currently making plans to relocate from Central to Western Kentucky by this time next year. As it turns out, Murray State University is the college to attend in Kentucky for journalism so I'll be trying to transfer there. Not only that, but the cost of living out there is dirt cheap compared to where I'm at now (as it stands, I can't afford to move out of my parent's house on my own without a roommate and I'm just not that trusting) and there's outdoorsy stuff to actually do. For example, Murray State is very close to lakes Kentucky and Barkley ... which means there's a chance I may also buy a cheap runabout boat and shuck the Astra in favor of something like a Wrangler Unlimited. We'll see. Let's see ... What else? Oh yeah, a plug. In Top Gear UK news, there's a chance that the show may film a new special in America as indicated by a post on Jeremy Clarkson's Facebook fan page, which seems like he may actually maintain personally. Since you can throw comments back at Clarkson on Facebook, I decided to make a suggestion that I think would make for an excellent episode. In a nutshell, they would come to America, buy $2,500 dollar cars on Craigslist, and drive them from Virginia to California without any road time on the Interstate to compete in the 24 Hours of Lemons. Hilarity would be guaranteed to ensue as whatever cheap cars they bought would certainly deteriorate on the cross country trip and it would be interesting to see how close they would come to meeting the requirement that each car be worth little more than scrap value to enter the race by the time they reach the west coast. If you agree that this would make for -- err -- smashing TV then hop on over to Facebook and like my comment by clicking this link. I'm the last guy to comment (as always). If you don't like my idea, then that's okay. I'll just have someone come to your house and make you watch reruns of the first season of Top Gear US until you realize my brillance. Also, don't tell me my Facebook profile pic is douchey -- that was the point. Anyway, until I'm back in a few weeks, take it easy everyone. Thanks for reading this post and playing along. - Blake

MOPAR = Momma's Ol' Plymouth Ain't Runnin' DODGE = Dies On Dealership's Garage Exit HYUNDAI = Here's Y U Never Drive An Import

It looks like something you'd use in foreplay. Jeers.

Hmmm ... I feel almost certain that gauge cluster is from a Japanese car. But which one ...

I'm just going to respond to the minor points of the following post. Oh. That's what you meant. Sorry for misunderstanding then. Baroness in particular are really, really big on guitar harmonies. Just sayin'. To be fair, maybe that influence comes from those early Metallica records (which was influenced by Thin Lizzy). Hard to say. Hmmm ... yeah, I gotta agree that in a live setting their vocals leave plenty to be desired. Still, there's a hell of a lot of talent in that band and one weak cog isn't always enough to bring down the whole machine. But hey, to each his own. In the words of The Dude himself, "That's just, like, your opinion, man." It's nothing like that. Not for me at least. It's simply about speaking up and challenging someone's perception, and what sort of conversation comes about as a result. Sure, I dislike a good lot of what Metallica's done and I don't understand how they've been able to ultimately ignore the progression of the record industry. I've never claimed to be a fan and I think they're far from the best musical act out there, past, present or future. Not everything Metallica has done during their career was/is pure gold and just because a band can brag about selling 2 million copies of a particular album doesn't mean literally everything they've done is something great to all people — the same is true of GM, if you want to make that comparison. But, in the end, I can admit there are some Metallica records I really like and may have even inspired me a bit. I'll just leave it at that.

Missing the point again, but it's cool. 1. Oh, I'm not denying that. I laughed my ass off when I first caught wind of that song and saw all of the 'Shoops. 2. Agreed. 3. Lou Reed doesn't suck. He's just not someone you'd want to put in the same room as Metallica. On his own, he's okay. I don't think he's anything spectacular, but there's certainly much, much, much worse. And The Velvet Underground wrote some of their best albums and songs during his involvement in that group. 4. I've listened to albums, even certain songs far more emotionally smothering and haunting than "Lulu". And why give too much credit to a band of Metallica's size when they "think outside the box"? Who says that gaining popularity automatically means that you can get lazy and rest on your laurels? If you're a musician and you play in a band that's recording albums, you're going to be thinking about the record you just wrote and how you want to make that record better the next time you're in the studio. Not how you want to completely change everything, but improve. Indie bands are "abominations" huh? Metallica was on an Indie label (Megaforce) in their early days, which means they were an Indie band at one time. I guess they're an abomination then. All of that's subjective. And, like I said, diversity isn't a bad thing. When you do, just make it sound like you and be consistent. Move forward but hold on to where you came from. That's how bands who do diversify find universal critical acclaim. Metallica's later work, as I've said, is a complete departure from their original sound. It makes me think of what Vinnie Paul said about forming Damageplan after Pantera went bust. Something about serving Coke to people for years then switching the formula to Diet Rite. Food for thought: If Metallica's studio albums beginning with "The Black Album" were released under another name, I'm sure you'd have less complaining. Seriously. If "The Black Album", "Load", "Reload" and "St. Anger" were all from some other band, they would probably be universally acclaimed. A band's sound and a guitarist's tone are two separate things. They can work in tandem i.e. one can play off of the other, or they can work alone. In Metallica's case, it worked alone when you compare and contrast their early and later work. Their classic guitar harmony huh? Yeah. It isn't like Thin Lizzy did stuff like that or anything. http://www.youtube.com/embed/66pE67m_Hf4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> You're concentrating on the fans themselves too much and not the band's consistency and progression throughout their career and how the fans reacted to that. They didn't release "Remission" and "Leviathan" then the "The Hunter" right after that. That would've been a complete 180 and that would've pissed fans off, regardless of how they may differ from Metallica's fans. Metallica going from an album like "... And Justice For All" to "The Black Album" was a total 180 and that's what led to so much dischord. As much I find "... And Justice For All" lackluster in comparison to "Ride The Lightning" or "Master of Puppets", I can say it was a passable Metallica record. And would you like Mastodon better if they sounded like this? http://www.youtube.com/embed/SWaxfiya0kw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> Okay ... that one was almost a cheap shot. Sorry.

Let's see. Where to start on this one? For starters, it unwittingly encourages listeners and fans to buy or download elsewhere. Like I said earlier. Also, you know just as well as I do if you're charging more for the same item that someone else is selling for much cheaper no one will buy from you. That's basic business sense. I know if I had a band and we were selling records we'd make sure listeners and fans were buying from us first and foremost. What's wrong again? You're missing the point. I threw the online sales figures out there for that record only to show an album can be a solid success without a record label to distribute it to big-box retailers and advertise it on MTV. Total sales figures for that album aren't easy to find. The point I was getting at was that, since Radiohead released the album themselves, paid for all of the recording costs incurred and promoted it themselves (although they didn't do a great job at advertising it), all of the profits came directly back to them. It didn't have to sell 2 million copies to be financially successful. They didn't have to let a million corporate leeches suck up a slice of their earnings. And regardless of the band's reputation, fans and listeners do like buying albums directly from the band. Ask and look around. You're missing the point, but that's fine. No big deal. When other bands and artists are asked about online piracy, I hear just as many positive comments as I do negative ones. I hear comments on how it negatively impacts hard-working independent labels; I hear comments on how bands built up their early fanbase by just releasing music online for free, no touring required. My gut tells me that Ulrich would do away with online music share all together if he had the chance. Maybe not, but that's where I'd put my money. Other bands ... well, not so much. Unless you meant Tool takes the same stance against file sharing. I suppose they might, but I'd also guess that they would be just as likely to leak their own albums to spite their label. If my opinion of "Death Magnetic" is subjective, then yours is too. I didn't say Toyota was irrelevant and I wasn't trying to argue that.

You're missing the point. The days of obscure labels turning out bootleg albums like this ... http://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/90255a1fbafde5a146943184279d0a9a/744569.jpg" /> ... are long gone. I get that hardcore Metallica fans value that sort of thing and it might make sense to offer "official bootlegs" to them, but it's not an end-all-be-all solution to their "problems" and starting up LiveMetallica.com surely wasn't a proactive decision. Because it would mean the band would eventually enjoy a more direct flow of cash and they would wind up giving iTunes less money. You do know iTunes gets a cut from every album they sell, right? On top of the other guys at the studio and corporate who get a slice of the pie? It isn't for free. So, that ostensibly means that: 1.) the band can enjoy healthier royalty checks; 2.) the band quits bitching about not making as much money from record sales; 3.) we don't have to have disucssions like this in the future. It's cheaper on eBay, new or used. Smart international fans will either buy there or, if they live in a first world country, their local big-box or mom-n-pop record store where the prices will be about a minimum of $3 dollars cheaper. It's either that or buy it used or pirate it. The latter two in no way benefit the band. Considering the current status of the record industry, charging $18 bucks for a standard CD only encourages fans and listeners to buy or download the music by other means through other outlets elsewhere. Again, that doesn't do the band any favors. Metallica must care after all since, like you more or less said, they may release their next studio album through the internet. It's funny. If that does happen, I can almost see Ulrich trying to take credit for starting it like how Romney tried to take credit for the auto bailout ... The Beatles are "wretched", huh? Would you like them better if they sounded like this? http://www.youtube.com/embed/EA_CgX2ihVg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> Okay, I seriously didn't mean that as a cheap shot or anything. I just wanted to bring up Beatallica somewhere in this thread and being the opportunist that I am, well ... A live DVD isn't enough and any Joe Schmoe can access LiveMetallica.com and purchase downloads there. How about throwing in some bonus studio tracks exclusive to the physical version of the album, extensive artwork, and user-interactive packaging for starters? And selling that for $10.99 as your standard physical release? You'll also have to excuse me for not keeping close tabs on the release of "Death Magnetic". I see where the band did try to introduce different packages for the album including the coffin boxset you're referring to, but those were offered to members of the Metallica fan club only. Which explains why I had no idea it even existed in the first place. I'll be fair and say the thinking was in the right place, but the band screwed up by not eventually offering them to customers who don't want to cough up the dough to be in the Metallica fan club. Offering the fan club a first crack at buying a copy is cool, sure. Keeping "outsiders" away from that chance permanently isn't cool. Now it looks like you're just trying to sell a membership, not an album.

Blown way out of context? How? Is it because 24 Hours didn't throw in this Hammett quote? Okay, so he's fine with touring. Still doesn't change the fact he complained about getting skimpy royalty checks and basically said the band has to tour in order to bring in big revenue. Not that the latter statement is a big shocker anyway; it's a known fact bands make more money from shows than record sales. Also, the way he said "have to" in that statement makes it seem as if he's not really enjoying it too much even still. No it isn't. Read it again. Hah. I guess we'll see, but unless Ulrich decides to take a bold step and start up a download service — something where you pay $10 a month/$120 a year and download (not just stream) as much of the band's standard catalog to keep as your connection's bandwidth will allow for free thereafter — I fail to see how the band will top what other bands are already doing. If they do decide to release their next studio album through the internet, it'll be nice to see them finally get on the boat before it sets sail. It would've only taken them 13 years. The band didn't offically break up after 2001. Newstead left and the rest of the band went on a short hiatus from the studio while they sorted through their personal issues. Sure, they may have been questioning their future then, but that doesn't qualify as a Beatles-style break-up, sorry. No one left in the band officially decided to go their separate ways, and no one started up solo projects. They pretty much directly went into the studio like they planned to before Newstead quit after Hetfield came out of rehab and they worked out their differences as a band. Their downtime barely lasted a year and, yes, they still technically existed post-Napster.

Can I still buy tickets to see this band? Oh wait. Never mind. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0F0kK45lVyk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You just lost all possible credibility with me after that statement. I won't be commenting further, but I might send a friend of mine in here to sort you out. I'll get around to FOG's novella later, but before I do let me just say that I think this post is absolutely hilarious. Now for more official business. In accordance with internet rules and regulations, I must inform you that before you bring in a friend, aquantance or accompliance to assist you in your handling of the emotional distress (known as "butthurt" in online lingo) you're experiencing from the traumatizing statement I made on Friday, you must fill out and send in the appropriate form. Please don't forget to file a copy for your records.

Obviously, I'm going to save money in the near future while working through college to pay off the future debt I'll incur. Before I do that, however, I'm going to buy another cheap ass Jeep Cherokee. I love the Astra, but just I know I'm going to have Mopar withdrawls and I still have that trademark Jeep itch.

No one is saying that. Look at the example I gave earlier of Radiohead's "The King of Limbs". The band charged for it, people understood they were being charged a fair price and that their money directly supported the band, and look what happened. The band sold almost 400,000 copies of that album through their website alone and it only took two months. I don't exactly hear other bands saying they want to charge $18 bucks for their records and rip-off fans. Hi! I'm Hyperbole and Sarcasm. I don't believe we've met. As for "Death Magnetic", it was an hour of four old fat guys treading water. Yawn. Just because something sells well, doesn't mean it's anything spectacular. Like Toyota, for example. It is pretty much true that they really are growing irrelevant from a buisness standpoint, though. The new record industry is preparing to leave them behind in the dust. Just you watch. I'll also go on the record here and say the first three Metallica albums were brilliant and I'm a fan of what the band used to be. I still have some small shred of respect left for the musicians they are now (that doesn't mean I care when they bitch about money). But the band that wrote "Kill 'Em All," "Ride The Lightning", and "Master of Puppets" seriously is long gone and isn't coming back. Everything. I mean, look at your own signature for God's sake. "I am the table?" I wrote better lyrics than that in 7th grade. Hetfield should've let Lou Reed write Lou Reed's own lyrics, if you get my drift. And Lou Reed is fine on his own. I don't claim to be a metal head. My sensabilities are more in tune with older rock bands from the late '60s and '70s and, even still, that doesn't mean I limit myself to listening to just that sort of music from that specific time frame nor do many of my favorite bands and artists meet that criteria. The music I write isn't exactly treading that particular body of water, either. I'll listen to anything from any genre as long as its good. I'm just as prone to listen to Merle Haggard or David Allen Coe as I am to listen to Queen or Black Sabbath. Anyway, the stuff that Metallica wrote after '87? Yeah, it's nothing spectacular. Why? Because it seems as if the band lost sight of what they were doing and how they identified themselves. I understand Burton's death may have played a role in that, but even still. When Bon Scott died, you didn't see AC/DC questioning what in the hell they were doing (just questioning how to move on more than anything). "... And Justice For All" was pretty mediocre if you move past the challenge of how lengthy the songs were and it lacked a certain punch that was there on "Lightning" and "Puppets". "The Black Album" has to be one of the messiest, most confused sounding records I've had the misfortune of wading through. "Load" and "Reload" were Metallica basically trying to play Kyuss tribute songs. "St. Anger"? Let's not go there. Bands and artists experiment and diversify for various reasons, yes. I most certainly understand that. But it's only truly successful when that band manages to make the end result, well, sound like them if that makes any sense. Consistency is the key word. Fans and other musicians alike aren't very receptive when you're just all over the board, trying to be a jack of all trades while not bothering to master any of them and not offering up your own spin on things. Look at Mastodon's new record "The Hunter". They've certainly experimented and changed some of their approach to how they write music — the tempos on many songs are slightly slower and the structures are more "poppy" rather than "proggy". But you really don't hear fans complaining because it still sounds like Mastodon. The guitar tones are still there, the vocals are similar to previous albums, the guitar skill i.e. the riffs are still there, the drumming is still techinical. When Metallica "slowed things down" it didn't sound like Metallica. The difference between "Master of Puppets" and "The Black Album" is horrifically stark. Even the difference between "... And Justice For All" and "Puppets" is glaring and those two albums were released only about two years apart.

That would be true if those quotes didn't come straight from Hammett's mouth. No one is saying that the band is going broke. But let's put down the glass full of Kool-Aid for a second and face the music. They're not raking in big royalty checks from record sales anymore. The consumer — i.e. their fanbase — has spoken as a majority here; their buisness model quite frankly sucks. They're sort of inept at this whole new-age record buisness thing and they're feeling the burn from it. They're not even willing to seriously try it out. Uh, yeah. It would be proactive if they did that before or in 1999 or 2000 when they were first learning of the popularity of file sharing networks. Not in 2004 after the fact the band realized that their lawsuit against Napster was horribly ineffective. The site seems to be more or less an answer to fans buying and trading around those stupid bootleg CDs of live recordings that used to be everywhere. That was an issue that ran rampant in the 1990s, not today, and I think someone buying bootleg recordings is worse than piracy. Also, Live Metallica.com is a very under utlized resource. Why restrict the site to live downloads? Why not allow the band's entire studio catalog to appear there as well, or at least redirect you to a iTunes link? Yeah, I know you can buy CDs from Metallica's main website, but who in the hell is going to pay $18 bucks for a new copy of Ride the Lightning when, for example, my local Wal-Mart has recently been throwing it in a clearance bin for $5 bucks? How's that for stupid? Metallica fans should boycott for being so blatantly ripped off. I can't honestly say the band is paying close attention to what other well-established acts are doing, either. Plenty of other well-established acts — acts who also may not enjoy a large cash cache like Metallica does — are pretty much going solo when it comes to recording, distributing and promoting their new records. Plenty of bands are also offering whatever single they release to promote their new record as a free download. And, although they weren't overwhelming successes, Nine Inch Nails' "The Slip" and "Ghosts I-IV" managed to turn a small profit and they were both even available for free download in some form — in the case of "The Slip" the full album could be downloaded for free with no strings attached. Radiohead also released "In Rainbows" in a similar fashion before NIN's "Ghosts" and "The Slip" and managed to regain some of the money they invested into making the album back. And although it wasn't officially available for free, their release for "The King of Limbs" was a solid financial success and the band didn't have to resort to charging outrageous prices for the mp3 versions. A DRM-free digital copy of "The King of Limbs" only cost about 2 GPB more than, say, an issue of "Top Gear" magazine (so, about a dollar or two less than "TG" magazine for us here in the States). The physical versions of Radiohead's latest record were also quite content rich for the price and came with both CD and vinyl pressings. I'm not saying I'm a big fan of either band; I especially moved on from NIN and that genre of music some time ago. But NIN and Radiohead are certainly experimenting with different buisness models that could very well set standards for younger, up and coming bands. The great thing is that the sales of the albums I mentioned above directly supported each band. No one in marketing got a slice, no one at corporate got a slice, no one cleaning the bathroom at the recording studio got a slice. NIN and Radiohead fans seemed to understand that. That's not to mention that, when the fans actually bought the physical copy of the record they were also rewarded with solid content, bonus features, and very cool packaging. So yeah. You know, I don't see Metallica taking charge here. Yeah, if he were smart, he'd be paying attention to how other acts are actually trying to improve the situation and rewarding their fanbase. See above. If he's such a smart buisness man, he would be trying to think of a fresh, new buisiness model that would make Radiohead's more or less obsolete. Instead, he's charging at least 1.5 times the regular price of a new copy of "Ride The Lightning" on Metallica's website.