Don't be caught "Stravinsky deficient" as the big centennial of his Rite of Spring approaches. (Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)

The Cocktail Party Guide To Igor Stravinsky

May 24, 2013 — Don't know neo-nationalism from neoclassicism? Bone up on the surprisingly multifaceted career of Igor Stravinsky as the 100th anniversary of his iconic Rite of Spring approaches.

So last weekend at the craft-cocktail den, a few of your more "cultured" friends suddenly diverted the conversation — from the botanical attributes of new navy strength gins to the big 100th anniversary of Igor Stravinsky's ballet The Rite of Spring.

"It started a freakin' riot in Paris at its premiere," one of them said, sipping her Hayman's Royal Dock of Deptford with a generous splash of Fever Tree tonic.

"But really it was the unconventional choreography that caused all the hullabaloo," another interjected. "The music itself, shock value notwithstanding, is drawn in part from old Russian folk sources, and it's actually quite festive when it comes down to it."

And there you stood. Feeling so, well, inadequate. All you could muster was a pathetic "Totally!" as you gripped your rocks glass of Old Raj and lime juice ever tighter.

Well, the Rite of Spring anniversary is indeed upon us. And lest you get caught again not knowing your neo-nationalism from your neoclassicism, here are a few musical crib notes about the composer of The Rite and his surprisingly multifaceted career.

Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

Fitz & The Tantrums. (Courtesy of the artist)

Fitz & The Tantrums On World Cafe

May 24, 2013 (World Cafe / WXPN-FM) — The group crafts a mix of indie pop and neo-soul on its new album, More Than Just a Dream.

The L.A. band Fitz & The Tantrums broke through in 2011 with its debut album, Picking Up the Pieces. Undeniable songs and exciting concerts led the group to festival dates and other high-profile live appearances around the world.

The band formed when L.A. studio engineer and musician Michael "Fitz" Fitzpatrick gathered friends such as fellow vocalist Noelle Scaggs to perform songs he'd written following a breakup. The core of the band convened again in 2012 to record the wide-ranging follow up, More Than Just a Dream, with a mandate that nothing was off the table.

In this installment of World Cafe, Michaela Majoun discusses Fitz & The Tantrums' recent success and "genre-smashing" new album.

Copyright 2013 WXPN-FM. To see more, visit http://www.xpn.org/.

Set List

• "Keeping Our Eyes Out"
• "Out Of My League"
• "6 AM"
• "The Walker"

Two women watch a movie screen. (iStockphoto.com)

Are Women Really Missing From Film Criticism?

May 24, 2013 (WXPN-FM) — Are women really being shut out of film criticism? One recent study claims that they're worse off in the online world than they were in print.

A new study from the Center for the Study of Women in Television & Film has led to headlines claiming that women are missing from film criticism. "Female Movie Critics' Influence Shrinking, Says Study," reads the headline in the Chicago Tribune. "The age of the Internet has not been kind to female movie critics," says the lede in The Wrap.

What the study apparently did (it's not been released in full to the public yet, but was provided to some outlets) was examine the number of reviews by what the movie aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes calls "Top Critics," finding that men wrote 82 percent of the reviews, leaving a measly 18 percent written by women. The Center's executive director, Martha Lauzen, said in a report that because women wrote 30 percent of the movie reviews in the Top 100 U.S. daily newspapers in 2007 according to a study that the Center did back then, film critics are less gender diverse now than they were six years ago.

I certainly wouldn't quibble with findings I haven't seen, so let's assume this is all exactly correct as it's been given to these other outlets: 82 percent of this spring's "Top Critics" reviews on Rotten Tomatoes came from men. Would that really have the suggested meaning that film criticism is less gender diverse than before?

First, understand that the "Top Critics" designation on Rotten Tomatoes isn't primarily about quality. It has is a strong institutional tilt, favoring people who are longtime reviewers at large print publications, national broadcast outlets, or large web sites. (The Variety story syndicated in the Tribune explains this more.) Without special dispensation, online writers can't even get into the "Top Critics" ranks until they've been writing for three years:

To be considered for Top Critics designation, a critic must be published at a print publication in the top 10% of circulation, employed as a film critic at a national broadcast outlet for no less than five years, or employed as a film critic for an editorial-based website with over 1.5 million monthly unique visitors for a minimum of three years. A Top Critic may also be recognized as such based on their influence, reach, reputation, and/or quality of writing, as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff.

So if online outlets were making criticism more gender diverse, any change in the last three years isn't likely to show up here anyway, making a comparison between now and 2007 a little suspect to begin with.

And in any event, comparing "Top Critics" from Rotten Tomatoes to the film critics at the nation's top 100 newspapers is apples and oranges. By 2007, there was already a thriving culture of online writers about film — it's entirely possible that that world was far more slanted than it is now, but you wouldn't see that from looking only at the newspaper film criticism of 2007. In fact, according to the study, newspaper reviews were still 28 percent written by women (about the same as in 2007), meaning the much bigger problem is Everywhere Except Newspapers, which is the sector where we don't know anything from these numbers about where we were in 2007.

Furthermore, film writing goes far beyond what are traditionally considered and counted as "reviews," so it's critical to remember that reviewing, in the sense that the term shows up on Rotten Tomatoes, is only a subpart of writing about film. And some of the women who are most passionate about film don't necessarily write "reviews," as much as they write columns or essays — and that's even more true with women who care specifically about gender issues in film. (Monika Bartyzel's "Girls On Film" column, for instance, or Melissa Silverstein's Women And Hollywood, or what Alyssa Rosenberg writes.)

Similarly, not all women who want to break into film criticism are particularly looking to do it in the largest traditional media outlets and the most heavily trafficked web sites. Some of them want their own space, their own voice, their own room to take whatever attitudinal approach suits them. And sometimes that means making peace with not being a "Top Critic," at least for now.

It's possible that women who are doing criticism and commentary have made their advances in formats other than day-of-release, up-or-down reviews in big outlets, which is essentially what interests Rotten Tomatoes and other aggregators that try to come up with a number that represents "critical opinion." It's possible that as you incorporate different voices into a conversation, they don't only contribute in higher numbers, but change the definition of a contribution and expand the spaces where it happens. So if you keep looking at the old spaces and formats alone, you might miss them.

But the most curious conclusion — at least as it was passed along by The Wrap and Variety — was a sort of shrugging at the fact that both female and male critics allegedly prefer the films written and directed by people of their own gender. As summarized by Variety:

The study also found that female critics do tend to gravitate towards writing reviews of films directed and written by women, while male critics are more drawn to films with male directors and writers. 36% of the reviews written by women were of films directed or written by women, while just 21% of reviews written by men were for films directed or written by women.

Okay, hang on a minute. Even assuming that this would be a bad thing, in order for any of this to mean anything about what people are choosing, you'd have to know how many films overall that would be eligible for review are written or directed by women. If it's 50 percent (spoiler alert: it's not), then men and women are both selecting against them. If it's 5 percent, then both women and men are disproportionately reviewing them over movies exclusively by men. If it's 36 percent, then women aren't "gravitating" toward anything; they're just reviewing what's out there. In other words, it's inaccurate to suggest that both women and men have a bias toward their own gender simply because within this sample, women reviewed somewhat more films by women than men did.

But more damaging to this part of the claim is that there is far, far, far more to a critic reviewing a film than "gravitating" to it. Film criticism for money is not a matter of looking at what's around in a particular week, picking something to review, and sending your copy. There's very often a process by which an editor of some sort either assigns or at least agrees to the critic's decisions about what to review. Women reviewing more movies by women could mean gravitating to them, sure. Or it could mean being assigned to them by editors who assume women are better at reviewing "women's" movies, or being assigned to them by editors because men don't want to cover them. Same with men — the fact that men review fewer movies by women than women do doesn't mean men prefer movies by men.

Sometimes, particularly when you're part of a staff, you review what needs reviewing. This is how I wound up doing Beastly.

Now, this may be a problem with the way this is being relayed in the press rather than reported by the study, because the Center that did the study certainly knows this, and raised this issue when they found exactly the same thing to be the case in the newspaper-only study in 2007. Back then, they acknowledged that a similar disparity could be the result of reviewer choice or editorial assignment.

But interestingly, at that time, of the newspaper study, 14 percent of the films reviewed by men were written or directed by women, and 22 percent of the films reviewed by women were. That means that both the women and the men in this study are reviewing substantially more films either written or directed by women, and whether it's because more films are available, because more critics are seeking them out, or because Rotten Tomatoes "top critics" review more movies by women than newspaper critics did when considered alone, that deserves to be part of the conversation as well.

Who reviews what is actually a really interesting soup of complicated issues. Some people think only a parent can really review a movie about parents, or only a woman can review a movie about women, or only a divorced person can review a movie about divorce. But there are certainly people who respond to a negative review of an action movie by a woman as proof that Women Don't Get Action Movies, rather than as proof that it's not a very good action movie. (The same thing may very well happen to men who review romantic comedies or Eat Pray Love or whatever.)

This is not, of course, to in any way minimize the issue of increasing the number of female voices (and voices of people of color) in criticism, in day-of reviewing, in papers, online, or anywhere else. There is absolutely a disparity, and there are absolutely issues of representation.

There's a lot going on here. Conversations about gender and gender politics are often engaged by men as well as women. Many women see no reason whatsoever to care what gender a director is. Some critics care a great deal about representation behind the camera, and some don't care at all. Some people write essays and reviews and lists and features, and some work every week in a strict review format with a grading/rating system.

But it would be a mistake, I think, to take this study as a sign that women aren't making themselves heard in cultural writing, because they are. Outlets that don't hire women or don't listen to them are, of course, causing problems, mostly for themselves and their readers. But whatever problems we're facing, the percentage of reviews showing up in Top Critic designations at Rotten Tomatoes is only a very small and very specific piece of it.

I'm far more concerned about what we say about actors and directors, and about how we receive stories that are about women, than I am about counting heads at one web site's definition of "top" outlets. There are a lot of women who are making themselves heard fairly tirelessly on gender-related topics and other topics, so underestimate (and undercount) them at your peril.

Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

Set List

• "Keeping Our Eyes Out"
• "Out Of My League"
• "6 AM"
• "The Walker"

Two women watch a movie screen. (iStockphoto.com)

The Great Charcoal Debate: Briquettes Vs. Lumps?

May 24, 2013 (WXPN-FM) — Does the kind of charcoal you use really make a difference when it comes time to grilling up a tasty steak or other meat on the grill? Yes -- but it depends on what you're after. Both briquettes and lump charcoal -- a.ka. "natural" hardwood charcoal -- have their advantages and disadvantages.

A lot of things about grilling can ignite a fight, including the meaning of "barbecue." If you have a charcoal grill, the type of fuel you use is no exception, as many people are likely to discover this weekend.

To a newbie, the world of charcoal can be overwhelming, especially since the charcoal aisle of big box and hardware stores seems to be getting more crowded, with alluring chips and lumps of apple, cherry, and even coconut wood. But the first hurdle is navigating the question: Do you use charcoal briquettes or lump charcoal, also known as "natural" hardwood charcoal?

Most polemicists on the matter can agree that there are advantages and disadvantages to each one: Briquettes burn more consistently, but they contain additives and generate more ash. Lump charcoal can burn hotter (handy if you're searing meat), and can be made with specific woods that leave a trace of their scent on food. But the lumps come in a jumble of different sizes, some of which may not be evenly charred. And its bags can contain more dust that may block the flow of oxygen in a grill.

If sales figures settle a debate, then briquettes and instant light charcoal are still the favorites by far (they made up 94 percent of the charcoal shipped in 2012, according to the Hearth, Patio and Barbeque Association).

Still, lump charcoal is attracting fans, especially among backyard cooks easily sold on the word "natural," which adorns nearly all of the dark brown bags filled with lump charcoal for sale. There are now more than 75 brands on the market. And there's even a small community for DIY lump charcoal.

According to Craig Goldwyn (a.k.a. Meathead), who runs the authoritative Amazingribs.com: The Science of BBQ & Grilling, "I see lump charcoal as just an extension of the organic movement. It's still a tiny sliver of the market, but it reflects on the public's desire to have less stuff in their food and their cooking."

All charcoal is essentially the same thing: wood burned with little oxygen so that all that's left is essentially carbon. But makers of lump charcoal claim it's superior because of its purity - it contains no additives like regular briquettes or lighter fluid like instant-light ones.

Indeed, while lump charcoal and briquettes both originate as scrap lumber, the uniform round shape of the briquette is a result of an industrial process that depends on other materials, too. (Kingsford, the biggest maker of charcoal in the U.S., is a little vague about what exactly is in its briquets, but its website mentions coal, limestone, borax and cornstarch.)

While breathing in too much smoke may cause adverse health effects, there isn't much evidence that the additives in the briquettes have any impact on food. What they do impact, says Meathead, is control over the cooking process.

"I'm trying to teach people how to cook, and so I preach temperature. That means controlling heat is really vital, and briquettes are just a rock-solid heat source," he says.

And when it comes to flavor with smoke, Meathead writes that adding small amounts of hardwood in the form of chips, chunks, pellets, logs, or sawdust on top of the charcoal matters more than the charcoal itself. In other words, mesquite or hickory wood will add much more smoke flavor than mesquite or hickory charcoal.

Some serious grillers actually prefer cooking with logs instead of charcoal, but it's a far more challenging undertaking. That's because raw, burning wood still gives off a lot of volatile gases (that are gone once it has been reduced to charcoal).

"You have a lot of die-hards who prefer the hardwood, and the thing about hardwood is that it can have a regional, cultural aspect," Jeff Allen, executive director of the National Barbecue Association, tells The Salt.

Allen notes that people from Georgia or Alabama are likely to prefer pecan wood, because that's one of the best hardwoods they've got. Over in Kansas City, another motherland of barbeque, the forests are rich with hickory, as well as oak and apple.

"When you look at the famous iconic restaurants, they're all using wood," says Allen. For example, Black's Barbecue in Lockhart, Texas, slow-cooks its meat over 60-year-old-pits, using local oak wood.

Grillers with access to good local wood may also be intrigued by the nascent DIY charcoal movement. Virginia Tech and the Virginia Cooperative Extension Office have been promoting homemade charcoal made with small kilns as a way to add value to wood scraps or firewood. The "local fuel for local food" idea has caught on at a few farmers' markets in the state. (Check out this YouTube video series to see how its done.)

According to Adam Downing, a Virginia extension officer, it's important to choose the right wood for the kind of cooking you want to do.

"If you use pine, that would burn fast and hot — good for searing a steak," he says. "But if you want a slower cook, you'll want charcoal made from a higher density wood like oak or hickory."

Downing makes his charcoal out of Ailanthus altissima, a non-native weed tree that has invaded his property in Madison, Va. "It's the bane of people who have it on their property, but it makes great charcoal," he says.

For the lump charcoal-obsessed who prefer to buy it, there's The Naked Whiz's Lump Charcoal Database, which features detailed reviews of dozens of lump charcoal products.

Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

Set List

• "Keeping Our Eyes Out"
• "Out Of My League"
• "6 AM"
• "The Walker"

Two women watch a movie screen. (iStockphoto.com)

Google Reportedly Faces FTC Antitrust Probe Over Display Ads

May 24, 2013 (WXPN-FM) — The Federal Trade Commission is in the early stages of opening an antitrust probe into how Google runs its online display advertising business, according to a report by Bloomberg News, citing sources who want to remain anonymous because the FTC has not announced the probe.

The Federal Trade Commission is in the early stages of opening an antitrust probe into how Google runs its online display advertising business, according to a report by Bloomberg News, citing sources who want to remain anonymous because the FTC has not announced the probe.

Google took the lead in the growing display ad market in 2012. Industry analysts at eMarketer.com predict that the search and technology company will book $3.11 billion in display ad revenues this year, topping rivals Facebook and Yahoo. Twitter is also expected to continue its strong growth in the field.

"FTC investigators are examining whether Google is using its position in U.S. display ads — a $17.7 billion industry that includes the sale of banner ads on websites — to push companies to use more of its other services," Bloomberg reports, "a practice that can be illegal under antitrust laws, the people said."

The news of a possible new inquiry into Google's business practices comes nearly six months after the FTC shut down its antitrust probe of the company's search service. That inquiry was closed after Google agreed to stop "scraping" other sites for user reviews and other content.

Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

Set List

• "Keeping Our Eyes Out"
• "Out Of My League"
• "6 AM"
• "The Walker"