2006-10 Vital Source Mag – October 2006
Testing Page for Evan
By Subhead here This is one paragraph. This is another. And another. This is bold.
Oct 24th, 2006 by Vital Archives
Stacia Van de Loo storms Vucciria
By Catherine McGarry Miller + photos by Kevin C. Groen Stacia Van de Loo came into the world in a Trans Am hurtling down Highway 57. “I was almost born in a bowling alley, but Mom pushed me back up and gave birth going 120, headed for a small clinic in Adell (pop. 517). I think it was for humans,” Van de Loo says in a questioning tone. “I was blue when the doctor whisked me away, leaving my mom in the car. Someone asked her, ‘Patsy, you OK?’ and she said, ‘Can I have a cigarette now?’” Vucciria’s right-hand person and creative innovator to manager Maria Megna has kept on her fast and independent streak through life. The thin, willowy Van de Loo looks like she often forgets to eat, which is probably true. To watch her at work is to witness a human tornado whose wake is littered with inspired creations, sometimes culinary deconstructions, but never disaster. She grew up in the small resort town of Elkhart Lake with her single mom. “My first remembrance of food is of standing below the table watching my mother cutting a cucumber on a wooden board. She cut the skin off and sprinkled it with salt. It made a pop and sang on my tongue. I realized that the addition of one small thing, like a spice, could change the taste dramatically.” Frequently left to her own devices, she experimented with whatever culinary opportunities presented themselves. Her first recipe was a peanut butter marshmallow sandwich with chocolate chips melted by the heat of the toast. Van de Loo made even the prosaic childhood staple of mac ‘n cheese her own by whisking butter into the dry cheese to make it creamier. On a visit to Milwaukee at the age of six, Van de Loo was awestruck by the elegance of a small corner restaurant. “The black and white polka-dotted napkins were folded into wine glasses and a counter was glowing in the background. I knew right then that it was what I wanted to have as a business some day. That was Mimma’s. It was a diamond in the rough when the rest of Brady Street was really raw and gritty and here was this beautiful, highly-designed place.” In the intervening years before Van de Loo would come to work at Mimma’s sister, Vucciria, she entered the restaurant world by way of dishwashing at the age of 12. By 13, she was waiting tables at a small eaterie and soon thereafter joined the kitchen staff. As a child, Van de Loo created intricate sculptures in cheese by folding, stacking and arranging the slices. Art and food became the critical intersection of her life. She continued working in various breweries and bistros through her college years at the Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design where she majored in sculpture and interior architecture. There she became a master of mixed media. “I use whatever the idea needs – everything […]
Oct 1st, 2006 by Cate Miller
High time for a high tide?
By Lefty McTighe The 1994 national elections were a watershed moment in American political history. In the first midterms of Bill Clinton’s presidency, Republicans trounced Democrats by more than 4.7 million votes nationwide, triggering a 54-seat swing in the balance of power in the House of Representatives, and handing the GOP control of that chamber for the first time in 40 years. It is that dramatic outcome enthusiastic Democrats and Progressives hope to emulate in the upcoming 2006 midterm elections, just a month away. After all, they argue, many of the factors that contributed to the Republican rout in 1994 exist today: an unpopular president, a culture of corruption crippling the party in power and a sense that the nation is heading in the wrong direction. Yet while the problems that plague Republican incumbents in 2006 bear a strong resemblance to those that doomed Democrats in 1994, an even more critical piece of the puzzle remains, at the moment, missing. Democrats in 2006 are still struggling to match the success of Republicans in 1994 in developing, articulating and rallying around a shared vision for the nation. And that could be the crucial difference in whether Democrats can win control of Congress this November. Incumbents in the crosshairs The parallels are intriguing. In 1994, scandal rocked Democratic Congressional leaders, just as for Republicans today. For Dems, it was a check-writing scam involving the House bank. Republicans today are saddled with Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and corruption involving political contributions. Widespread dissatisfaction with the chief executive also existed in 1994. Bill Clinton had a rocky first two years in office, marked by a highly controversial debate over gays in the military, an unexpected flashpoint in Somalia, and the political fiasco that was his health care plan. George W. Bush is perhaps even more unpopular rolling into his midterm elections. The 43rd president has consistently polled below 40 percent of late, with his leadership and judgment in serious question over Iraq, Katrina, economic issues and more. In both years the same party ruled the White House and Capitol Hill, creating a sense of politicians run amok and a lack of accountability; ethics clouds hung over both parties, and the president lacked the political capital to rally his party to victory. But will that be enough for Democrats this November? The “Vision” thing In September 1994, six weeks before the November midterm elections, Congressional Republicans unveiled the ‘Contract with America.’ It was an ethos that propelled the Grand Old Party to electoral victory, and three factors made it an enormously powerful political tool. First, the Contract articulated a clear conservative vision to American voters, and an undeniable alternative to the Clinton White House. From lower taxes to welfare reform, from revamping Social Security to tort reform, it was a crystal clear agenda from the right end of the spectrum. In politics, where contrasts matter most, the differences couldn’t have been more obvious. Second, the Contract was signed by all but two Republican candidates for […]
Oct 1st, 2006 by Vital Archives
Salad Days
By David Seitz When Wisconsin voters consider the proposed constitutional ban on civil unions and same-gender marriage on November 7, it will mark the first time the fate of unmarried domestic partners (lesbian, gay and heterosexual) and their families has been subject to direct legislation in our state’s history. While the legislature has long debated lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues, the proposed amendment injects LGBT rights directly into the public discourse in a new way, blurring the boundaries between the personal and the political in ways not seen since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Drawing the lines As a 22-year veteran of the state legislature who is also an openly gay man, State Senator Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee) speaks clearly about how he maintains professional relationships with colleagues and constituents whose votes or views harm the interests of LGBT Wisconsinites and their families. “I respect those who philosophically believe in what they’re doing, as opposed to those who know it’s baloney, or who didn’t decide for themselves,” Carpenter says. “Some who personally opposed the ban but voted for it said to me, ‘It’s nothing personal, but I voted that way.’ Privately, I’m disappointed, and I’ll think a little less of them as human beings, but it certainly doesn’t keep me from working with them on behalf of my constituents.” He also notes that he only rarely hears negative comments from constituents about his own sexual orientation, and that when confronted, he simply moves on to the next person. By contrast, Carpenter’s colleague from a neighboring district, State Senator Tom Reynolds (R-West Allis), has come under fire from constituents, LGBT community leaders and his election opponent for his support of the ban and handling of related issues. Reynolds is seeking re-election in the 5th State Senate district. Reynolds has not been criticized for the sort of election-oriented cynicism Carpenter describes as so disappointing. On the contrary, Reynolds appears to fall into the category of those who “philosophically believe” in the ban. An evangelical Christian, Reynolds was the only state legislator to attend the 2003 “International Conference on Homo-Fascism” in Milwaukee. He also professed support for the ban in campaign literature, writing, “…the secular humanists are trying to normalize all perverse human desires.” He has been reproached for failing to develop that ability which Carpenter describes as so vital to a professional legislator’s work: separating personal opinion from professional priority. As one of Reynolds’ constituents, I experienced this firsthand. I am openly gay and continue to actively oppose the marriage ban. I mentioned those facts during a listening session Reynolds held at my church on the matter in 2004. After that meeting, Reynolds personally sent me information on “re-orientation therapy” for gay people on his state senate letterhead and franking. Though this encounter and one other took place two years ago, I only felt comfortable speaking publicly about them this spring. Since my story came to light, I have learned of other gay citizens who say they’ve had similar […]
Oct 1st, 2006 by Vital Archives
October 2006
By LEFTY: THINK FOR YOURSELF. I opened the August 2006 issue of VITAL hoping to find some interesting cultural happenings when I stumbled upon “The Distraction in Iraq” by Lefty McTighe. The article reinforced my view of Milwaukee as a bastion of the predictably ordinary. It’s as if Lefty sits in front of his TV watching ABC News then runs to his computer to regurgitate whatever claptrap dribbles out of Stone Phillips’ mouth. Claims like Iran “founded Hezbollah” which is the “same radical terror group responsible for today’s crisis” lack any historical truth or critical analysis. “Iran now stands on the brink of developing its own nuclear arsenal” and “North Korea is learning to deliver nukes to the U.S. mainland” sound like the word-for- word fear mongering that Tony Snow dishes out to help buoy the administration. The basic premise of the article, that Bush has bungled the WAR ON TERROR!, is based on the absurd premise that the war on terror actually exists outside of the Network News. My legal advice is that VITAL Source stop plagiarizing Wall Street Journal articles and attributing them to Lefty McTighe. My business advice is that VITAL Source should consider providing its readers with some fresh perspectives to distinguish itself from other run of the mill Miltown rags. Finally, although I still harbor hope that McTighe’s nickname refers to the hand he favors, I fear he believes it represents his politics. If my fears are correct, I would like to suggest that he change his name to “Hum Drum” or perhaps “Middle of the Road” or “Off the Mark” McTighe. Aron Corbett Riverwest BICKERSTAFF BITES THE HAND THAT FEEDS HIM. I am writing in regards to the head-scratchingly obnoxious tone of Russ Bickerstaff’s contributions to your September cover story (“Thespians, Troubadours, yadda yadda…” ). Now, I will fully admit up-front that I have never been a fan of Mr. Bickerstaff’s writing style, which includes his pre-VITAL Source work, finding it to be generally pretentious – and occasionally even backhanded and snide – in nature. However, I felt I had to comment on two points in the article in question. First, his reference to the upcoming original comedy, “Dracula vs. the Nazis,” I found to be especially petty and uncalled-for: “It’s a fascinating premise for a comedy and should prove to be a really interesting show if [Michael] Neville’s script is competent enough to deliver on it.” Now, as one of the actors involved in that play, I certainly can’t claim to be unbiased, and only time will tell if the show delivers enough to satisfy Mr. Bickerstaff’s discerning palette. But as an alleged writer himself, you’d think he’d extend a little common courtesy toward his fellow local scribes rather than tossing out such cheap barbs. My second point concerns his entire section condemning Broadway musicals as evidently being far worse than all the plagues of biblical Egypt combined. This piece of work is so outlandishly nasty that I almost want to believe he […]
Oct 1st, 2006 by Vital Archives
The Pernice Brothers
By Frank Olson Now that we know that The Pernice Brothers can make an album as solid as Live a Little, it’s time for them to show that they can do better. Live a Little would be passable as a debut album, but one expects 10-year veterans to develop a more distinctive (or at least less wussy) sound than the one on display here. And there is definitely only one sound on Live a Little; for an album only 41 minutes long, it sure overstays its welcome. Younger bands ranging from The Shins to Of Montreal perform the same type of throwback pop, but do so with far greater playfulness and invention. Live a Little does boast a handful of truly catchy songs (“Automaton,” “B.S. Johnson,” “Conscience Clean” and “Lightheaded” ), but the overall tone is so light and chirpy that the album seems to evaporate as you listen to it. Most of the songs are hampered by tinny orchestral accompaniment that sounds as if it was created on Casio keyboards (though real musicians were involved). It is hard to tell whether the fault lies in the unengaged performances of the session musicians, the uninspired arrangements of Joe Pernice or the airy production of Michael Deming, though I suspect it is some combination of the three. Live a Little isn’t bad, per se, but it does virtually nothing to set itself apart from (or above) the rest of the albums coming out this month.
Oct 1st, 2006 by Vital Archives
Jeremy Enigk
By Nikki Butgereit The new album from Jeremy Enigk, former singer and primary songwriter of Sunny Day Real Estate, is a melancholy trip to the depths of emo. Unfortunately, it never makes its way back from the pits. The album begins with the instrumental track “A New Beginning,” a jubilant symphony of violins and dramatic chiming bells. Here is where the pep begins and ends as the remainder of the album has a folksy, contemplative, philosophical vibe that’s rather depressing. Enigk’s raspy vocals are reminiscent of Perry Farrell, with a touch more whine. While that style fits in perfectly with the quietly dreary tone of the record, it becomes overwhelmingly grating as the songs tick by. Musically, the album is long on depth. The songs layer violin and mandolin on top of piano and guitar. The melodies are sweeping and sometimes powerful, but even the “upbeat” songs are downers. “City Tonight” has the closest thing to a driving rock beat you’ll find on this album, but it still keeps the pace at a slow drag. Enigk’s first solo venture in 10 years has none of the vigor and punch of the early Sunny Day Real Estate, which is unfortunate. While the songs are solid and the compositions lush, the moony lyrics and snail’s pace make the album exhausting to listen to and difficult to enjoy.
Oct 1st, 2006 by Vital Archives
Indigo Girls
By Jon M. Gilbertson As cult artists go, The Indigo Girls are perhaps halfway between Richard Thompson and The Ramones. Unlike Thompson, Amy Ray and Emily Saliers have had a couple of hits (although the big ones go back a decade and a half); like him, they have a dependable core audience. Like The Ramones, they have not been encouraged to vary their identifiable style; unlike The Ramones, they cannot claim to have invented, or at any rate, popularized it. For The Indigo Girls, this tricky situation means that minor distinctions take on magnified importance: one disastrous track throws an entire album out of whack, but absolute familiarity breeds boredom if not outright contempt. Under the circumstances, Despite Our Differences is a qualified success. As usual, Ray slips into the role as the plainer singer and more direct thinker of the two (the driving “Money Made You Mean” represents her side), with Saliers being the more sweetly melodic and more poetic (the waltzing “Lay My Head Down” epitomizes her side). Depending on who’s out front, their harmonies have either mid-autumn crispness or mid-spring breeziness. Really, that’s about it. Pink – returning the kindness the duo paid her by appearing on her album I’m Not Dead earlier this year – juices up the loudest track, “Rock and Roll Heaven’s Gate.” Famed producer Mitchell Froom manages, for once, not to bend the sound toward his quirks. True believers will love it. Casual fans will like it. People outside the cult… who knows?
Oct 1st, 2006 by Vital Archives
Bob Dylan
By Blaine Schultz With Modern Times, Bob Dylan finds himself inhabiting the itinerant bluesmen’s spirits he merely impersonated when he cut his first album in 1962. As with the masterful Love and Theft, Dylan immerses himself in American music forms, touching on blues, old-timey country and Tin Pan Alley pop, and lets his band rip into these templates, reinventing them in his own image. If these songs sound familiar it is simply because Dylan is not shy about borrowing generously – a Muddy Waters line here, a slide guitar lick there – from source materials that were magpied plenty of times before he got to them. But like Miles Davis and Bill Monroe, Dylan reconfigures the very DNA of the music. This is the second album in a row Dylan has chosen to record with his current touring group and, musically, Modern Times excels when the players work in their signature driving, roadhouse blues that allows for real-time interaction and bits of improvisation. Not unlike his legendary work with The Band, this lineup is a stellar example of how songs are treated in the hands of sympathetic players. Unfortunately, in Dylan’s tour of the American songbook he seems to have developed a jones for crooners. While his cragged voice woks great for the Old Testament cane-stompers, there’s too much Bing Crosby included here; that’s my lone caveat. Consumer note: some pressings include a DVD of four fantastic performances, and orders from his website include a CD of Dylan’s Theme Time satellite radio show with his hilarious commentary on baseball-themed tunes.
Oct 1st, 2006 by Vital Archives
A lifetime in color
By Evan Solochek “I don’t even know why you’re wasting your time interviewing me,” Saul Leiter says in a soft, weathered voice. “Really?” I ask sheepishly, “You know you’re kind of a big deal, right?” He just laughs. Leiter’s warm laugh, not to mention unwavering humility, would be a frequent guest during our half-hour conversation. At 82-years old, laughter comes easy to a man who simply doesn’t take things too seriously. Leiter recalls one day a few years back, when a curator from New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art met with him at his studio. Upon examining samples of his work she exclaimed, “You must be very dedicated.” “I told her I wasn’t,” Leiter says through labored laughter. “I think that upset her because people expect you to be serious about certain things. I think that if you’re familiar with art, the history of art and all the very great things that have been done, you don’t take yourself that seriously. There are photographers and artists who are very unfamiliar with the history and as soon as they do something they think they’ve done a Rembrandt. I haven’t been burdened by that kind of illusion.” Serendipitous success To hear Leiter discuss his career in photography it seems as though it happened almost by accident, or at least in spite of the man himself. It has been a long and winding journey these past 50 years, and along the way Leiter has sat in the passenger seat and watched as the path unfolded before him. “No one has ever accused me of being a very clever career person,” says Leiter. “In order to have a career you have to want to have a career and have to be obsessed with having a career. I didn’t find that obsession attractive.” From this point of view, Leiter’s success can be more easily attributed to raw talent and a unique perspective than to relentless ambition. Arriving in New York City from The Cleveland Theological College in 1946, the then 23-year-old son of a rabbi was an aspiring painter who quickly befriended Richard Pousette-Dart, an abstract expressionist painter who Leiter calls “one of the great American artists.” It was Pousette-Dart’s experimentation with photography that turned Leiter on to the camera. Originally utilizing black and white, Leiter soon moved to color, for which at one time he received much apathy but today he is most widely regarded. And much like everything else in his life, Leiter attributes this career-defining shift to mere happenstance. “I bought a roll of film one day and it was a roll of color,” he says. “I had been doing black and white and I bought a roll of color and I used it and I liked it so I went on using it. That’s how it all began. There were people who looked down on color; it was considered inferior by some people to black and white. I don’t understand why. The history of art is very often the history of […]
Oct 1st, 2006 by Vital Archives
