So here's what happened. Last weekend, in the middle of the afternoon, my friend Richard called me up. Seems he'd gotten asked at the last minute to provide hey-you-come-over-here-and-browse music at a downtown Phoenix gallery during the occasional ArtWalk event.
So I rushed home and changed clothes, then joined him for some acoustic noisemaking.
Those of you who know me even in passing know that he and I used to be in a band together, and that even after I moved back to Phoenix we continued to play together after he moved to our toasty little valley. My move to California put a stop to it, though, and the subsequent busifying of my life (grad school, side businesses, etc.) prevented a return to our former arrangement. I made a conscious decision to put the whole musical thing on hold till I finished graduate school.
Anyway.
It was a lot of fun. A lot. I realized what I'd been missing.
So.
I certainly don't have any more free time than I did before last weekend, but I've decided to chuck my whole resolution not to play. We'll resume regular rehearsing this week, and we're planning to fill our weekend schedule as much as possible with bar, coffeehouse and special event gigs. We certainly won't be able to venture outside the Phoenix area (or at least Arizona) for quite awhile, but my goal is to get back to my former playing level, to raise our profile a little bit, and maybe start recording a bit.
Richard, for his part, has truly been improved by the years. Some of his songwriting is truly stunning enough to embarrass poor long-out-of-practice me, and his guitar playing is rather accomplished.
By mutual agreement, I think we're retiring the Hadrian's Wall name for the time being, at the very least until we have a full band and possibly not until Atlantis rises up, the sun goes black and Pete rejoins us.
As for a substitute name, we're open to suggestions. The best I've heard yet is Moore Devine (maybe MooreDevine, if that's not too gimmicky), but if you have other ideas, please throw them my way. And no, Indigo Boys won't cut it.
Once things start rolling and we have some news and new photos, www.in-the-wall.com will be completely updated and revamped to reflect the new band.
Ad astra per aspera.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Monday, March 01, 2004
An excerpt fromthe decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ...
Enlightening reading, especially for people who get all of their information from mainstream media and presidential blather about 'activist judges.' The case they make is carefully reasoned and somewhat objective. Really, the only way you could possibly take issue with the decision is if you're convinced that homosexuality is a learned or chosen behavior. Is that what we want enshrined in our Constitution?
Here, the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. [FN28] If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit. [FN29]
Enlightening reading, especially for people who get all of their information from mainstream media and presidential blather about 'activist judges.' The case they make is carefully reasoned and somewhat objective. Really, the only way you could possibly take issue with the decision is if you're convinced that homosexuality is a learned or chosen behavior. Is that what we want enshrined in our Constitution?
Here, the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. [FN28] If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit. [FN29]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)