Jesus > Religion (?)

Give the next four minutes to this video, even if you have already seen it. It's best to watch or read things several times in order to think critically about them. And, strap in, this is a long post. I hope you enjoy it, though.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY&w=853&h=505]

It's been 'liked' on YouTube over 160,000 times and 'disliked' on YouTube over 19,000 times. It's been shared on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and YouTube time and time again. Most commentary thus far has been divided as to whether or not this 'message' is acceptable. Herein lie some of my thoughts. Feel free to read them, wrestle with them, agree or disagree with them, and challenge them. This is an important topic for our time and we would do well to approach in this conversational way.

I remember going to a Big Daddy Weave Concert. I love them. Soooo good. And they began singing a song, one they covered from another worship artist, "Fields of Grace." In Big Daddy Weave's version of the song resides a line that goes like this:

There's a place where religion finally dies.

And I remember Mike Weaver (the lead singer) prefacing the line by saying, "This is my favorite line of the song." The spirit in which it was sung now seems strange to me. I once was sold on the concept of "relationship, not religion" but I'm now more convinced that that notion cheapens the Christianity that both Jesus and Paul called for.

Which leads me to this somewhat bold statement: The man in the video was too caught up in praise given to him for his skilled rhyming that he forgot to actually check his statements and definitions for consistency.

The problem with the video above is that it seems to go one way...and then another. He claims that Jesus and Religion are on opposite sides of the 'spectrum' but he also points out that your religious affiliation on Facebook doesn't make you a Christian. Wait, what? How are these tied together?

It becomes necessary to define 'religion'. (Good rhetoric makes use of loaded, ambiguous terms like 'religion' and, well, 'Jesus' because you can begin to redefine them in your own way in order to make a point. Not defining them within an argument not only makes the problem worse, it threatens to destroy the terms entirely.)

It seems to me that this man considers 'religion' to mean: a facade that followers put on that masks their spirituality. He's not even close to suggest this. Get religion out of the way because JESUS is what is so important. He seems to be saying that you don't need religion if you have Jesus. In fact, he blatantly says that at the beginning of the piece. He says,

What if I told you that Jesus came to abolish religion?

(I desire to respond: I'd tell you that you were wrong)

If anything, I think, Jesus came to reform religion. Jesus came to correct religion. Jesus came to show humans how to live life. This was a large part of his ministry on earth, including his preaching. Jesus did not come to abolish religion, he came to serve religion. In one sense, he came to serve as a means of growth throughout that life.

So truly, 'religion,' for Christians, is the means by which we worship God and grow further in the likeness of Christ. Religion encompasses sacraments like communion and baptism. Religion involves a confession of sin. Religion encourages prayer. Religion encourages accountability. Religion is a way of life, and a way to grow into a Christ-like life.

Now, his courageous testimony is notable and honorable. I always am moved by people who had a huge transformation toward Christ-like living in their lives and are willing to speak openly and honestly about it. BUT, because he has this...he operates out of a mindset of grace.

Truly, surely, GRACE is a large part of the Christian story. Paul tells us that we are sinful people, in need of grace. Theologians have told us throughout time that that sin is covered by grace. Though it's disagreed on exactly HOW that grace functions, all Christians agree that the life of Jesus, the death on a cross, and resurrection have something to do with the grace required for eternal salvation. Even our friend in the video remarks that salvation is not based on "my merits, but Jesus's obedience alone." AND HE'S RIGHT.

Jesus's obedience to do the will of the Father, to face death, has a great deal to do with our salvation. This, I believe, is true. And I can't name you a Christian who thinks that YOU can earn YOUR OWN salvation. That idea was pretty much outlawed in Christian circles a LONG time ago.

But, he's still confused.

His points are right. We do need grace. That has been taken care of. Christians should live holy lives, not just consider themselves saved because of their Facebook information. Christians should tear down the facades. Christians should be open and honest. Christians should practice grace.

BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT 'RELIGION' IS!

That's the calling Jesus placed on us through his preaching. That's the call Paul placed on us through his letters. That's the calling our pastors place on us every Sunday. Religion, the practice of worshipping and becoming more Christ-like, is defined by all these things that he outlines. Religion is not just perfume on a casket, it is the burial ceremony and the tears shed for the loved one.

So, you've probably reached the same point I have.

He's a good poet. Spoken Word is popular now. Rhetoric is easy to come by with ambiguous language. Good speakers can catch and win over a believing audience just by the tones of their voice.

But this does not excuse us from watching our words.

Statements are bold. And when they're attached to art, they become MORE powerful.

Definitions are important. Because we use them to communicate effectively.

So 'religion,' as it stands, maye be a used up, dried out word that offends people. And...perhaps we need a new word. But people, good people, Christians in fact, use the word 'religion' to speak about how they're growing into a Christ-like life.

And so to make a statement that Jesus > Religion is simply unfair. Jesus and the Christian religion are intimately tied together. Religion is a way of life. Religion is the VERY thing this man is calling for. Jesus did NOT hate religion. Religion is a means to Jesus, and if approached in that way, those liking and disliking the video can actually come upon common ground.

Wouldn't that be wonderful?

As a writer, I can relate to this guy a lot. I often write papers that make awesome points that contribute to the exact opposite of my thesis. I end up at the end of the paper saying, "Wait, where'd I go wrong?"

I just tend to think that this is dangerous for the future of the Church. Influencing this many people and convincing them that 'religion' is wrong is scary. Very scary. We do need Jesus. But we also need prayer. We need accounable discipleship. We need confession of sin. We need baptism and communion. These are elements of religion that most in the Church are unwilling to let go. Because, for them, this is where Jesus is. This "Jesus and Jesus alone" mindset is ok, but only if religion gets included in the definition of 'Jesus'.

-B

Five Year Old "Super Bass"

As you watch this little gem, ask yourself questions like, "Is what we play on the radio formational?" or "How do kids learn things so much faster than we do?" or "Should we film our children?" or "What the heck is her sidekick doing the whole time?"

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7hTAp6KrGY&w=640&h=385]

Five years old. While I don't support children this young saying, "Excuse me, you're a hell of a guy"....

...she killed it. I'd love to hear her sing in two more years.

-B

These Girls Are Good

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg959d7a2JE&w=853&h=505]I'm disappointed that I haven't been watching this show. Because of that, I've been wasting most of the morning catching up.

So perfect in nearly every way.

The emotions and crescendos are placed exactly right, and the harmonies are tight when they need to be and wide when they don't.

Truly great work.

-B

(They had a third performance that was a lot less creative than these two and not as good...so they're not infallible.)

Auto-Tuned Steve Jobs

Steve's famous words from his Stanford Commencement speech, put to music.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4VTZx5jcnQ&]

-B

The KJV on Contemporary Music

Michael Pearl (whoever he is) on Contemporary Music in the Church.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCmY3HgZF7w&w=640&h=385]

It is obvious that he has shining opinions. It's also fairly obvious which side he is on.

I hear tons of arguments for and against "contemporary music" (whatever that means) in the Church very, very often. Many make good points. Others make points like our friend above.

It is, though, an interesting approach to be sure. All of his other videos seem to focus around the Bible for guidance in issues he drones on about(yeah, I watched more than one). This one, besides the trumpet point at the end, does none of that. Rather, he uses "science" (and to use that term is more than a large stretch) to talk about how a happy song can't have a "sad" melody or harmonic pattern. While most any human would agree with this notion at first glance, I doubt many are able to make the jump that our friend does here (we might also profit from thinking about how many other emotions are portrayed within music, especially outside of the realm of happy and sad). Somehow he went from that concept to...rap music glorifies violence and rape. While we all know that many songs on the radio do glorify violence, rarely (if at all) do they glorify rape. And, just because a rapist listens to rap music, doesn't mean that all music with the same rhythms or "beats" is intended for rape and violence. It's a boggling correlation that makes very, very little sense.

He remarks that music that glorifies God has to have four part harmonies and be the music of "Bach and Beethoven." He also says that that was when music was at its best, "it was at its most complex." I'm a fan of both noted composers, but music has become more and more complex since the time of Bach and Beethoven. It is only within the past 75 years or so that music has "simplified." Beethoven's works, in and of themselves, are good examples of the progression of complexity that continued through time. If one compared Beethoven's early works to his later works, one might not be even able to tell that they were written by the same man. Bach was incredibly talented and brilliantly minded to be sure, but complexity within music (specifically within harmonic studies) has become more and more developed since his time. It's what we like to call "progress" and it is both necessary and inevitable.

The part about the trumpet may have some truth to it (I haven't done any research) but he contradicts himself again when he speaks about how if the spirit of God tugs at you then it is Godly music. He assumes that all people feel the spirit of God in the music he does.

We all know what you do when you ass-u-me.

-B

NOTE: My choice of title for this post is intended to reflect the irony of our friend's lack of Biblical insight into this "issue" while also explaining to the reader who Michael Pearl is. He only uses the KJV Bible, and actively speaks negatively about all other translations, including the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. He prefers the Masoritic and Vulgate, which in translation were heavily influenced by church politics. Because when you want an accurate translation, politics are the first thing your need.

This post spends no time at all looking into what the KJV actually says about music (the trumpet parts appear in every text). If you're disappointed by this reality please accept my profuse, yet not that profuse, apologies.

How do I get iOS 5?

I should have never opened my mouth. All day today, I've received text after message after email about wanting me to give people iOS 5 for their iPhone or iPad. Technically, I broke the NDA that Apple developers have to agree to in the first place. If you were one of these people, don't be offended, but I can't get it to you.

First, I'm not technically a developer.  I've been using a friend's account.  One that he graciously let me log in to.  But it costs $99 a year to do it and he, not having produced any apps, finally saw that it didn't seem to be worth the money.

I've considered paying the fee to be a developer, but I no longer live in a situation where I can be the only one making financial decisions, and it doesn't make sense for me to pay for the account at this point in my life.

So, I'd like to fill you in on what it takes to get a beta iOS release onto your phone:

  • You must be a registered iOS developer. $99 a year.
  • You must download the ipsw file from Apple's servers.
  • Then, in Xcode, you must update your phone.  This is a clean wipe and you'll want to make sure that you backup all of your contents in iTunes first. You'll be able to re-download apps (and now, music) that you didn't back up and bought from iTunes, but it's safe to back up anyway. You must register with not only the UDID of the device, but also with account's credentials inside of Xcode 4.
  • If it works anything like iOS4 did in beta, you'll have to reorganize everything.  Generally, you'll need an updated iTunes (10.5 for this one) for iTunes even to be able to recognize an iOs5 device connected to it.
  • Apple generally works off of a two week beta cycle, meaning that in two weeks, you'll have to do this all again.
    • It's worth noting that this MIGHT change this year as Apple has switched to Delta (meaning, change) updates that update over the air (much like Android). You might not have to do a clean install on your device for the second beta, but we won't know until the release happens.
Thanks to the generosity of a friend of mine, I tried this last year on my 3GS for iOS 4.  Let me explain my issues last year:
  • I had to do a clean wipe every time.  That doesn't sound like a huge deal, but iOS4 introduced folders. iTunes didn't (at the time) recognize folders. So, every clean install also required new folder alignments, etc. That can literally be hours of work for them to be well organized.  Then, in two weeks, the jig is up and you have to do it again.
    • Again, this may be cleaner this year,
  • Every two weeks, when the new beta is released, the old one is not longer functional. A timer is set and you must renew it before time runs out.  Fun.
  • Some apps don't work.  Literally, my TomTom app was useless because iOS4 changed the way that the apps read the iPhone location data.
    • PROOF: Marco Arment (creator of tumblr and Instapaper) tweeted this today:
      • "Developers: there's a VERY good chance your app needs tweaks to work properly on iOS 5. Not fully backwards compatible. Test like crazy."
  • Some general apps didn't work.  We didn't know it at the time, but Apple was definitely testing some features with the camera app.  For the first two betas, the camera didn't work.
  • There's way more.
All in all, I learned a few lessons: don't update on a device that is "mission critical." Apple says explicitly in their documentation that this is for testing purposes only, and that it should not be used on a phone that someone relies on to get around with. Hence, I put iOS5 on my 3GS last night and spent the day playing with it.  It's not bad, but it's slow and iTunes doesn't back up to it well enough yet,  iCloud (really, the functioning part of what we'd like to use it with) is not fully up and running yet and so playing with the new features isn't fully ready. If I were you, I would wait.  It'll save you money, and think about how good it will feel when you finally get hold of it!
If, though, you still want it, you have a few options:
  • Become a registered developer ($99)
  • Buy a name and password from some dude on eBay ($5-$10) and hope he doesn't take your money and run.
  • Watch all the videos that go up on YouTube by all the people who break their agreements with Apple.
  • Jailbreak your current phone and get some of the features (given, not as well employed) and try them out that way.
  • Search for the ipsw file online, download it, try to install it in iTunes (option-click the restore button) and hope for the best.
Sorry I can't be of any more assistance.  I've decided against putting it on my iPhone 4 or iPad (even though I've been very tempted).
-B

Maddi Jane - Rolling in the Deep

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMrCW07XBS8] Sometimes, YouTube's recommended videos can lead you to a treasure.

I think this girl is like 11.

They filmed it on an ice rink.

-B

Why I Like Apple

A lot of people ask me why I like Apple so much. They ask constantly. I often have trouble thinking of everything.

I like their commitment to product excellency. I like their commitment to product simplicity. I like the fact that they focus on different things than other tech companies. I like their story. I like their unique and innovative approach. I like their leadership, especially Steve Jobs. I like their understanding for people, in real situations and places. I like their commitment to the environment. I like their simplicity in general. I like their products. I like them.

This new ad for the iPad 2, titled "We Believe," kind of sums all of this up, I think.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyEpaPEbjzI&]

-B

Andre Rieu, "Classical" Music, Entertainment, and Art

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"]The image represents André Rieu in Atlantic City[/caption]

If you've ever been bored in front of the TV and have stumbled upon PBS, you've probably seen Andre Rieu perform with his 5o-or-so member orchestra. The Today Show did a special on him last week an replayed it this morning. I couldn't find it online, but plenty of his performances are on YouTube.

In short, the sequence talked about how Andre was raised in a musical family and his father was a classical conductor. I assume that they were referring to the genre, not necessarily the actual Classical period.

Supposedly, Andre didn't like the "stuffy" atmosphere that was present in the Classical music world and sought to fix that because "music is an emotion" and served a higher purpose. I suppose you could say that Andre felt as if the uppity sense of the Classical world and the fans of it ("that pop music is just too...catchy")was destroying the culture of the art and he desired to make it a fun experience. If you watch any of his performances on PBS, you'll know that there are all kinds of parts added to the "show" to make it entertaining.

That's the word I was hung up on.  Entertaining.

When I studied music, I came to understand it as a form of art; it was sometimes in attractive forms, sometimes not...but still art.  Often, because it is a form of art that many people are not as skilled at, musical performances of any degree bear a sense of entertainment.  I enjoy going to recitals of singers who are better than me because I am not as good as them-I can learn from their performance and interpretations.  At face value, that logic would hold for a non singer...because someone who doesn't sing well is by definition not as good as the performer meaning that they would find a degree of entertainment inside of the performance.

However, if you have been to a "Classical" performance (recital or otherwise) in recent years and you observe the audience, you'll do well to glean a few details that might lead to a better understanding:

  1. If it is not an incredibly popular artist or series, most of the crowd will be at least in their 60's.
  2. Those who are musicians will be there with eyes wide open and critiques flowing.
  3. Those who aren't either a)Seniors or b)Musicians will be a few winks away from sleep.

Obviously these are generalized statements and will in no way hold true across every performance, but do have a ring of truth to them.

The logic from above just doesn't work. I've noticed it in the declining ticket sales of the Fine Arts Series in Branscomb Auditorium at Florida Southern. I've noticed it in conversations with others.  I've noticed it in observing performances and the audiences of them. Perhaps you have too.

I think the key is that a musician (or one who sympathizes...I know the broad statements seem a bit utopian-don't be offended) has a bit of a higher understanding about the composition, about the technique, and about the practice of performance.  This knowledge stimulates some sort of intellect that seeks to learn more. That learning is entertainment. It is enjoyable and will keep one who is intrigued by those thoughts on the edge of their seat at every phrase and breath.

But that's not the typical world. Most people don't understand. And because their idea of "good music" hinges around the backbeat and clever rhyming of words...this type of art is no longer as "entertaining" as it once was.

In the Baroque and Classical eras, music wasn't the "stuffy" thing we think about as now. It was meant for dancing.  It was meant as background music. It was meant for parties. It was an art form, but entertained as well. It was all they knew. Gradually, over time, this shifted. What would have been considered "catchy" melodies in Bach's time were replaced by "catchy" melodies in Beatles' music. Sure, people went to Beatles concerts, but as recordings were easier and easier to come by, people played that music at parties. Even now, you cannot walk into a club or bar where music isn't playing.

The interesting thing about Andre Rieu is that he appears to have caught it.  He seems to understand this disconnect between the art of years ago and the culture of today. In making it funny and adding showmanship he has made it "entertaining". He is incredibly popular.

What was funny about the Today show piece this morning is that they spoke about how the "Classical" world has turned their nose at Andre Rieu's efforts. They say it cheapens the art.

I try to be a little more positive. I think it brings an awareness back to a culture that forgot.

It probably only "cheapens" the art because our culture has been..."cheapened". The music on the radio today is much more simplistic than even Beatles songs. And The Beatles were known for having A LOT of catchy music (I mean, just compare their stuff to Dylan and you'll understand). But Andre Rieu is taking a form of art and entertainment that he enjoys and bringing it back to the masses in a way that will get everyone's attention. I don't think it can be considered "cheap" if it is referring back to the art of old.

Better yet: his main crowd...Seniors.

I guess I'm saying this: Artists tend to want to bring attention to the art that they view as "sacred". That's fine. But in the end it was just a creation by a human. Talented, brilliant, genius humans are born everyday.  Let's celebrate the past and the thoughts and art forms of old.  But let's also recognize innovation.  Let's call what is good good and what is bad bad.

And finally, let's all get over ourselves just a little bit.

 

-B

Sarah Palin Posted This to Twitter...

Her quote:

SarahPalinUSA Think Obama's tax policies are wise? Watch this... http://youtu.be/Xj7nRc3_EG0

You know what occurs to me?  This is not the way our tax system works.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7nRc3_EG0]

I enjoyed reading the YouTube comments as well.  Some of my favorites:

Dear Lee, Please send this to Obama. 

If Sarah Palin likes it, you know it must be a gross simplification.

What would really happen if this was truly based on US tax policy is that Man #10 would take all sorts of tax deductions and tax credits and end up getting back $25 dollars, and then he'd fire of all his American drinking buddies, move his drinking operation overseas, and only lay out $15 dollars for drinks while still getting $25 back from Uncle Sam.

Sarah Palin sucks man, don't talk to her lee

If this took place in in a Tea Party bar the 4th and 5th guy would be complaining that they should all drink piss instead.

I love your eye contact with the camera

Do you think having books behind you gives you credibility? This story doesn't change the fact that wealth has been migrating from the middle class to the richest Americans over the past 30 years while jobs (not rich people) go out of the country.

This is the dumbest argument ever! Hypothetically, a poor man gets $100 income and a rich man gets $1million income. Both get a 20% tax refund. The poor man can use the $20 to feed his family, and the rich man can use his $200,000 to buy a new Bentley? Although proportionally, the tax breaks are the same, this tax breaks are so much more important for the poor than for the rich. Ever heard of the Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility?

I have a problem with your bar stool story. In my experience the first 4 men do not drink for nothing but are PAID to drink. I know a guy who refuses to live with his girlfriend with whom he has 3 children. For this she is getting cash, housing, heating and food dollar assistanced from the government in addition to her part time job. And he spends his money on pot.

So the entire justification for the rich receiving higher tax breaks is that if they didn't they'd move away and stop paying taxes altogether?

The woman who posted this could be our next President.

Run for the hills.

 

-B

On Bruno Mars

I often feel bad about posting so many videos. I feel like it is the way in which we all communicate now a days, so it seems fitting. You may know Bruno Mars (or Peter Gene Hernandez). Or have heard his stuff. If you haven't at least heard his name, you've been living under a rock.

Here's the deal with him: He is phenomenal. He is 25 years old, from Hawaii, and has been somewhat of an instant success. Let me list the songs that he has had a hand in since his career took off:

[I've had to edit this list three times to add to it....when Glee covers four of your songs in a season...and you're not Madonna...you've got something big]

You may be thinking to yourself, that's a lot of songs in the space of a year for one guy.

Yes it is.  All radio hits.  All extremely successful.  Allison and I have a joke that "Just the Way You Are" is on every time we are in the car.  Because it is.

In watching some of the YouTube clips (and there are tons) it is more possible to see the talent that this kid actually possesses.  Whether it is in an interview situation, remixing Nirvana and Michael Jackson, doing requests at a live acoustic show, or straight up covering Michael (tell me his voice doesn't sound so close to Michael's); this kid's got it.

What strikes me though, is the content of the songs.  With the songs that he explicitly sings on (do not count Flo Rida's song or Cee-lo's), the content is not the typical stuff that our trashy culture has been putting out recently.

The songs are about love, with eyes only for one, considering beauty (without the need to change), fixing the world if you had the money, and the lengths that one would go to for another.  It is refreshing to see an artist become popular and not have all of their songs be about sex, drugs, or getting shot.  It also helps when they are good at what they do. I feel as if we need lots more of THIS type of influence (not perfect, religious, or anything by any means...but good, somewhat wholesome music) in our culture and on our radios.

This isn't to say that his songs are clear of foul language and worldly desires, but they seem a bit...more real than a lot of the other stuff on the radio.  I find it intriguing to say the least.

If only he could stay off the crack.

If he can keep clean, he's gonna be huge.  Bigger than he is now, for sure.  There aren't a lot of people in the world with this kind of talent and charisma.

Don't believe me?  Watch this:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjhCEhWiKXk]

BTW, his album is $5.99 on Amazon for a limited time.  Eat it up.

-B

YouTube Sensations Meet One Another

Many people advocate that the advent of technology has hurt our society in many ways. It is fair to say that society has changed because of it, and that in the wrong hands technology can be hurtful and destructive. However, there are so many upsides to our progression as a society, I kind of feel like it is worth the fight. In example, see below. We have two groups (one PS22 and the other Greyson Michael Chance) who had talents that were discovered on YouTube. They have both been able to do things that they might not otherwise have been able to do (perform for the President or Ellen Degeneres), had they not have posted the videos of them singing.

The connection is astounding.

Watch the reactions of the choir when they realize who it is that is in their presence.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEJFOs1maNM&]

It's as if they don't realize that many of their own videos are viral (given, it may be a different set of kids, but it is still the same group with the same attention to the same name).

I keep having this feeling that this type of connection and interaction (and sharing among the world via the Internet) can do a lot for the betterment of society. It can seem scary at times, because it makes it easier to disconnect from each other rather than to connect, but in the long run it can do things for us that we couldn't have otherwise done.

Better yet, think about how much technology's presence has progressed from the days in which it began. Tech and computers no longer have the "geek" label in the ways that it did before. More and more people are being referred to as "gamers" not because they own an XBox and play Halo, but because they own an iPhone or iPod. Sure, it has changed quite a bit, but it has helped to reach far more people.

I tend to think that the use of technology has helped us become more aware of problems in the world and society and has raised new voices that might have been marginalized otherwise.

And it has helped us discover new talent.

Technology, and the analogies that stem from it, reacher a wider audience than ever before and it is growing faster and faster. How do we embrace it and not let it destroy us?

-B

It Is A Sad Pitch-Corrected World

I'd like you to compare and contrast these two videos. Pay special attention to the last clip. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjCLQaTFXx0&]

And... [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DeL3AzkbRk&]

If the last one had been in an American Idol audition, he'd have definitely made TV, and definitely been asked to leave.

Absolutely awful. Millions watch his YouTube channel. When will we begin to study again how to sing in key, on pitch, and with feeling? Seems pretty basic.

-B

Forget You

Glee has a reputation for overproducing recordings of their singers. It usually makes the songs more pleasant to listen to and, honestly, adds to the humor of the show a little bit. Glee is in that area of being believable and not at all at the same time. I you can live in that space happily, you'll really enjoy the show. I guess this week Gwyneth Paltrow is guest appearing.

Many celebrities have guest appeared on the show since its beginning and almost all have sung a solo.

Gwyneth Paltrow sings "Forget You" this week.

The song is great. (I mean I can't publish that I think the text is great, because in its original form, it's highly inappropriate) but the song is catchy and funny.

You may disagree, but I think this recording sucks. Its the worst auto-tune I've heard in a long time. I don't even think this is her voice. Doesn't sound like it. It's so computerized that it is hard to believe that their musical directors let it go. Can she even sing?

Judge for yourself.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XyKVetF2kk&]

-B