Why you probably won't find me on Twitter

I've noticed that a number of my friends are absolutely raving about Twitter, and while I think the site can be useful to some people, I don't think it's for me.

The basic premise of Twitter is, "What are you doing?" And, you know what?--from time to time, I'll feel like I'm doing something interesting. But, often times, I don't think that my every thought is worth following. If you read this blog, you can see how often I do (or don't) post. I don't feel the need to let everyone know what I'm doing all the time. Most of it would likely wind up being filler with the occasional tidbit of useful information. I prefer to go with quality over quantity.

Also, Twitter mentions that with the service, you "can stay hyper-connected with friends." Great. I'll know everything my friends are up to so I'll never actually have to talk to them. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but sometimes I enjoy not knowing every single detail of my friends' lives. That way, I feel like I could e-mail, call, or hell, even see them in person and find out some new information on their lives that can't be searched for on the Internet--and with details!

That's the other thing about Twitter that bothers me: entries are limited to 140 characters. So yes, you'll know what your friends are up to, but briefly. To expound on what was said, they'll have to do another entry. If you have a question or a direct response, you do an @username with your "tweet". But still, it's only 140 characters. So, your response has to either be really concise or you have to bastardize the English language to get your whole thought across. Srsly? That's not 4 me, U know? But how does writing such short entries affect broader writing in general? Granted, I know Twitter was initially based off text messages, and texting's effect on grammar is one that is still being debated in different forums, but I'm going to put myself in the camp of thought that the brief and abbreviated communications put a strain or limitation on expanded thought. If you're constantly posting short entries about topics, would you ever be inclined to post something more in-depth?

I don't want to paint a picture that Twitter is all bad. In fact, I don't think that. It could be useful in telling a bunch of friends about a happening going on, or in quickly communicating about plans or a change thereof. And I know that there are some people out there who are using the medium to create "micro-fiction", stories essentially told line by line, and I admire the efforts. My good friend Matt Lydon has been working on such a story about a character called Matthew Tweet, and I suggest you check it out if you can. I always enjoy his writing and have been excited to see where his story goes, although I usually wait for an aggregation so I can read multiple posts at once and catch up on the story.

Still, as this post might seem to suggest, I think I'm doing my best work when I'm writing more than a few lines of text. Maybe it'll take me longer to get it out, but I know by the end it's quite likely that it's thought out pretty well (as I have a habit of going over my work several times before posting) and I know that I'm communicating the way that I want to. And maybe that's the biggest difference between me and the many Twitter users out there: they're happy to communicate in such a terse manner, and that's just not my thing. I like to write, and I don't want to be stifled by the character limitations. I don't need to let everyone know what's going on in my life all the time, and I don't need them to do the same. So while so many others out there in the ether tweet, I'm content to let that one part of Web 2.0 pass me by. I'm just fine and dandy with my blog--K thnx bi!

Really? REALLY???

So, Scarlett Johansson covered "Last Goodbye" by Jeff Buckley, one of my favorite songs of all time.

WHO LET THIS HAPPEN??? WHO??? I WANT TO KNOW!!!! GAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Okay, okay, I'm breathing, I'm calming down. I got a little out of control there, and I apologize. But, really, why? It's her vocals and a piano, the song length is almost cut in half, and it seems to have a rather lounge-y feel to it (which in that particular case, my favorite lounged-up version of a song is Ben Folds Five covering "She Don't Use Jelly" by The Flaming Lips, and I hold that as my high standard).

The original version of the song evoked so much emotion--it wouldn't be uncommon for me to well up a little bit when Buckley starts belting "Kiss me, please kiss me. Kiss me out of desire, babe, and not consolation." She barely emotes at all there. It's almost like she's yawning when she sings those lines. Oh, sure, she brings it up a notch or two in emotion with the following line, but it's unconvincing. Maybe she didn't even try with those lines because she doesn't quite have the vocal chops to carry it off without her voice cracking in an unflattering way. I'm only speculating, of course, but I heard a song or two when she tried covering Tom Waits, and it seems like, for all she's tried, she's either picking the wrong songs for her range, or, well, she just shouldn't be trying to record and sell music. However, if she tried to write and record some of her own material sometime, I'd probably give it a whirl, just to see what she could come up with.

For the time being, I'm going to pass judgment and say that her interpretation of this great song is far inferior to the original, and it makes me wonder why she made the attempt in the first place.