While I was watching Beavis and Butt-Head the other night, I saw a commercial advertising a reissue of Pearl Jam's legendary 1991 album Ten. Let me just start by saying that I've listened to the original probably hundreds of times. It was pretty much my go-to album throughout all of high school, and I still think it's one of the greatest albums ever made. When I saw there was a new edition that was re-mixed and remastered hitting the shelves, I got pretty excited to see what it had to offer. At first the obvious worries about authenticity came up, but I learned that the reissue was sanctioned by the band and engineered by the their long-time producer, Brendan O'Brien. This alleviated most of the doubts I had up front. I brought the album to work yesterday on put on my best headphones...

Now for the meat and potatoes. First let me say that the reissue is definitely worth a listen if you are a Pearl Jam fan. If you aren't super familiar with the original Ten, it's possible that you might not notice a difference, as most of the re-mixing has to do with bringing out previously obscured instrumental tracks and tweaking vocals. On the other hand, if you are intimate with the album you might be very surprised at times. Gone is the heavy reverb on Vedder's voice that signified the grunge era. Now the vocals are pristine and cutting, and a bit more "legible". In addition, I noticed throughout the album that the clean guitars (and keys) were pumped up a bit, and the bass generally had a new clarity, with more highs. Also, all the lead guitar parts were noticeably fatter, without being too shrill. In a nutshell, the new reissue is like "watching" Pearl Jam in HD.

The biggest standout song I'd say is Black. From the very beginning when the bass enters it has new, very modern sound. The keys are also much more a part of the backing track, whereas before they were only really significant in the "doo doo doo doo" part. Jeremy was also noticeably tweaked at the end, loosing Vedder's prominent "whoo, whoo, whoos". Across the board the songs all seem a bit louder, with more highs and volume, and less reverb. The last track, Release is slightly shorter brings a more 2000's sound via the new vocal mixing.

In conclusion, the Ten 2009 reissue is a modern take that stays completely true to the original. I would go as far to say that there would be no need to have both versions on your iPod, however they come packaged together in the Legacy Edition (the cheapest reissue package). If you are loyal to originals and a fan of the early nineties grunge sound, you'll probably want stick with the old one. If you're like me, you might appreciate the more intricate sound and enjoy finding nuances that were previously too obscured by reverb and distortion. Buy it on Amazon.

Last night I watched Beavis and Butt-Head on MTV2 for the first time in probably ten years- and I was shocked by how hilarious I found it this time around. I laughed harder than in either of the most recent Family Guy or South Park episodes. We watched the episode where Beavis gets high-strength prescription glasses for fun, and Butt-Head pisses off his dentist and gets his mouth wired shut.

I guess I was just a little too young when the show was in its prime to appreciate it fully. That's ironic given how simplistic and immature Beavis and Butt-Head are, but I think more of it than I realized was over my head. When I was watching it last night I found myself laughing at not only the flawless delivery of each punch line, but also the realization of how much of Beavis and Butt-Head is actually in myself and all of us...

This weekend I was exploring Hayes Valley, San Francisco with my girlfriend. It's a really cool place, maybe my favorite SF neighborhood that I've seen so far. But what really sold me on the place was a little shop called True Sake.

I've been getting into sake lately and really loving it. It's got the alcohol content of wine, but is more gentle than even beer in my experience. It's derived solely from rice, so there's not a lot of dark colored gunk to give you a hangover like with red wine, and no carbonation, and it tastes delicious. I used to order hot sake a lot in restaurants, but I learned that they usually use bad sake for that. The cold varieties though, filtered and unfiltered are invariably awesome to drink. I haven't tried one yet that I didn't like. Check this page for a quick rundown of types of sake.

The one problem with Sake is finding it. Besides ordering expensive bottles in Japanese restaurants, you can't really find it at mainstream grocery or liquor stores. Ralph's might have one or two types, but not enough to really get a feel for it, and they don't have big bottles so it's not a great value. After getting frustrated with this, my buddy and I drove over to a Japanese area in LA (near Sawtelle and Olympic) and we found one pretty decent place called Nijiya Market. They probably have 20 types there, so it was enough to keep us occupied for a while, but without any guidance it was kind of like picking bottles out of a hat.

Fast forward to yesterday and in comes True Sake. We were about to walk past this place and luckily my girlfriend spotted it (earlier in the day I had brought up how I wished I could find some new kinds of sake). Inside we found probably 200 types of sake laid out on tables and shelves! Better yet, the two women who work there are extremely helpful. I had tried this one type of sake before that I loved called taru, which is aged in cedar, but I could never find another variety to compare it against anywhere. This place had a whole shelf of it and the woman recommended a new type and told me to try it at room temperature. This was paradise. I even signed up for the email list which is probably a first for me. Tonight I have two recommendations to sip on when I get home from work.

Apparently this place is the first sake store in the US, but hopefully LA will get one soon. I'd even invest in one if I had to cash. Awesome...

The Brief Wonderous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz. I had to return $40 worth of stuff to Barnes and Noble and they wouldn't give me my money back. I had no idea what to exchange my stuff for so I started looking through the list of Pulitzer Prize winners (thanks again, iPhone) and this was the most recent one. It's a history lesson on the Dominican Republic, a very personal account of three generations of an immigrant family and a sort of fairy tale all in one, and the guy writes it in badass, hilarious Spanglish. If you have any interest in Latin American culture it's a must read, and if not you should read it anyway and you'll learn something. That's it.

I know that's a really heavy title, but I came across this article in The New York Times today and found it really interesting. Basically it's saying that terminally ill patients who are more religious try harder to save themselves.

Terminally ill cancer patients who drew comfort from religion were far more likely to seek aggressive, life-prolonging care in the week before they died than were less religious patients and far more likely to want doctors to do everything possible to keep them alive, a study has found.

The patients who were devout were three times as likely as less religious ones to be put on a mechanical ventilator to maintain breathing during the last week of life, and they were less likely to do any advance care planning, like signing a do-not-resuscitate order, preparing a living will or creating a health care proxy, the analysis found.

-NYTimes 3/17/09

I'm not quite sure what to make of this one, but it's thought provoking. I would have guessed previously that the opposite relationship existed. It would make sense that people who put their faith in science would trust and utilize it more to save their lives, while people who put their faith in the divine would trust God more. Apparently I'm wrong though, according this study. Maybe a different way to look at it is that the devout strive to protect life more (as mentioned in the article). This would tie in with the pro-life argument. Either way, an interesting read here.