Marv Albert's favorite band

The band Yes has been around for about 40 years now. They've gone through all sorts of changes in that span; you might need a scorecard to keep up with the personnel changes. They've also recorded a couple of dozen albums and certainly made enough money to keep them in something close to rock star luxury for a lifetime.

But speaking of changes, consider this one. This is a band that once headlined Rich Stadium for a concert, and drew tens of thousands. On Saturday, the boys played the Jamestown Savings Bank Arena before a "half-capacity crowd." I'm not sure how many people the place holds, as it was my first visit, but the floor was less than half full, the 10 rows closest to the floor were generally full, and the eight rows in the balcony were quite empty. We're probably talking less than 2,000 for a group that once played before 60,000 just up the road.

Let's give the band credit here. It's the end of a tour, and they stared out into some empty seats in Jamestown upon taking the stage. Yet, they all worked hard throughout and turned in a polished, professional show. The "opening act," Asia, did the same thing -- it's always a treat to see Carl Palmer pound the drums and his gongs.

But the night did prompt some thoughts about the concept of "dinosaur rock." As in, what exactly are the rules for rock bands when they get old?

In the case of Yes, Rick Wakeman has retired from public performances. His son, Oliver, replaced him on this tour. Oliver didn't sport a cape like his dad often did but seems to know his way around a keyboard. Meanwhile, Jon Anderson skipped this tour because of illness, so he was replaced by Benoit David of Montreal. David played in a Yes tribute band. He does sound like Anderson, as you'd expect, and he did a good job on vocals on Saturday. Alan White, Steve Howe and Chris Squire were all back at their usual stations.

So ... does a band need to have its lead singer perform in order to be a little more "legitimate" in performance? Is it Yes without Anderson? If Pete Townshend fired Roger Daltrey, would it still be the Who? If there is a new lineup, does it need to be recording new music in order to be taken seriously? Yet if Paul McCartney were playing with four guys from Elmira, wouldn't you pay to see him?

And moving a notch down the pecking order, what do we do with the bands that have retained an original name and play the hits to make a living despite having one or none original members? If you ever want to get dizzy, read the history of the Temptations on Wikipedia.

We're making up the rules as we go as some of our (insert "baby boomers" here) favorite musicians reach social security status. I'll keep going to hear the music I like, but I have to admit that the concept of a rebellious rocker becomes something of an oxymoron three or four decades into a career.

The Final Four of the Sabres

I've been reading a book called "The Final Four of Everything," which comes with a cute idea. What if it wasn't just the NCAA basketball championships that were paired off? What if we had brackets to determine the best sports cliche, best guy named Tom, best Olympic heroes, best state bird, best board game, etc. This is a little hit or miss depending on your interest, so that "best gun" sort of left me cold, but otherwise there's plenty to keep your interest.

Let's try "The Final Four of the Buffalo Sabres" as an example. I'll list the pairings of each round, and explain the winners:

Goalie Division (8 players)
Dominik Hasek vs. Martin Biron
Don Edwards vs. Bob Sauve
Ryan Miller vs. Roger Crozier
Tom Barrasso vs. Daren Puppa

Hasek is the easy winner over Biron, Sauve takes it up a notch in crunch time to surprise Edwards, Crozier's original Sabre glow isn't enough to beat Miller, and Barrasso accomplished more in his stay than his "good friend" Puppa.

Dominik Hasek vs. Bob Sauve
Ryan Miller vs. Tom Barrasso

Sauve can't stay close at this level. Barrasso won some hardware in Buffalo, but he was so unpopular on the team that he just can't top Miller.

Dominik Hasek vs. Ryan Miller

Was there ever a doubt?

Defenseman Division (8 players)
Mike Ramsey vs. Larry Playfair
Brian Campbell vs. Jerry Korab
Jim Schoenfeld vs. Bill Hajt
Phil Housley vs. Alexei Zhitnik

Ramsey was too good for too long to lose to the popular Playfair. Campbell's time was short but he might have been the second-best offensive defenseman in team history. Schoenfeld gets points for flamboyance over the steady Hajt. Zhitnik was underrated locally, but Housley put up some astonishing numbers for a defenseman.

Mike Ramsey vs. Brian Campbell
Jim Schoenfeld vs. Phil Housley

Ramsey played for a long time and with tons of heart and competitiveness. Housley is a slight second-round favorite but gets surprised by the popular Schoenfeld.

Mike Ramsey vs. Jim Schoenfeld

Schoenfeld makes a game out of it, but Ramsey packs for the Four Four.

Forward Division (16 players)
Gil Perreault vs. Dale Hawerchuk
Alexander Mogilny vs. Rene Robert
Danny Gare vs. Mike Foligno
Dave Andreychuk vs. Chris Drury
Rick Martin vs. Rob Ray
Craig Ramsay vs. Don Luce
Pat LaFontaine vs. Pierre Turgeon
Daniel Briere vs. Thomas Vanek

Perreault wins on longevity here, although you could have an interesting discussion about who was the better NHL player. Mogilny's breathtaking talent wasn't on display long enough to beat out a French Connection member. Gare and Foligno are similarly tough and popular; Gare had a little better scoring touch and all-around game. Drury records the biggest surprise of the tournament with a win over Andreychuk; Drury was a leader and could score too. Ray is a sentimental choice for the tournament but no match for Martin. Ramsay lasted longer in Buffalo than his linemate Luce. And speaking of fun matchups, LaFontaine was traded for Turgeon and gets the edge here. Briere became a great scorer here, even if Vanek might get the nod down the road.

Gil Perreault vs. Rene Robert
Danny Gare vs. Chris Drury
Rick Martin vs. Craig Ramsay
Pat LaFontaine vs. Daniel Briere

Perreault is an easy choice over Robert, while Gare scores points mostly for longevity in a good matchup with Drury. Ramsay is a personal favorite, but Martin was a fabulous goal-scorer until he hurt his knee. LaFontaine was better in his prime than Briere.

Gil Perreault vs. Danny Gare
Rick Martin vs. Pat LaFontaine

Perreault was a one of the few players in hockey history who could make a crowd rise to its feet on a regular basis. He sometimes was worth the price of admission. Gare was very valuable but doesn't reach Perreault's level. LaFontaine was as popular as any Sabre in history, and he provided some great moments while here. Those two go on to the final four.

Final Four
Dominik Hasek vs. Mike Ramsey
Gil Perreault vs. Pat LaFontaine

Ramsey was a superb defenseman, but he's not going to the Hall of Fame. Hasek is. Perreault's biggest edge over LaFontaine was durability, and that sneaks him past LaFontaine.

Championship Game
Dominik Hasek vs. Gil Perreault

Wow. Perreault was the franchise for more than 15 years, and a clear Hall of Famer. Still, Hasek might have been the best goalie in NHL history during the portions of his career here in the late 1990's. He wasn't bad the rest of the time here. Hasek is the champion.

Steroids and stats

While I still try to digest the news about David Ortiz and steroids, and it will take some time, I'll pass along some more general writing on the subject by baseball analyst Bill James.

As usual, he's not thinking the same way the rest of us do. And that's good. Check out his thoughts here.

Well played

Ever seen a more interesting hole-in-one than this one? Probably not.

Attention: George Carlin

Remember the routine the late George Carlin did about baseball vs. football? Football is played on a gridiron, baseball is played in a park. Football has its points scored in the end zone, baseball runs count when you go home. And so on.

He probably could have done a few more minutes on spring training vs. training camp.

The Buffalo Bills started training camp today. As one local reporter told me the other day, "Summer is over." At least for him.

That might be the main difference to the two sports when it comes to preseason workouts. When pitchers and catchers report, it's the first sign that winter is ending and spring is right around the corner. Yahoo. When football players arrive at training camp, fall isn't far away, and we'll be turning on the heat and getting out coats and sweatshirts (and no cracks about what a "wonderful" summer it's been this year either).

There are other differences of course. Most baseball players are signed before camp and ready to go these days. Football draft choices play the annual game of waiting to see what everyone else makes before signing a contract, which means that negotiations can drag well into August. And what do we hear from coaches at that time? That the unsigned draft choices are missing valuable workout time and if they don't sign within three days they might as well write off their rookie seasons. The fact that these players -- who have been in organized team activities and minicamps almost non-stop since the day they were drafted -- usually can sign in mid-August and start on opening day is quickly forgotten by all.

Anticipation by those involved is much different too. Baseball players can't wait to get out in the sunshine, work out a bit, maybe play a few innings of an exhibition game, and then go hit the beach or golf course. Football players arrive ready for some two-a-day workouts and a month of practice hits with the level of enthusiasm reserved for oral surgery. At least the era of three-hour workouts twice a day with no water has come to an end.

I'm not denying football fans the right to celebrate the fact that their favorite time of year is approaching. From a purely selfish, professional standpoint, football training camp is more than welcome to the Buffalo media. We haven't had that much to talk about since the Sabres season ended in early April. While we may get sick of Terrell Owens soon enough, Bills' news will at least keep the phone lines on talk shows humming and the space in the newspaper filled.

Still, I'll do my best to not take what happens with the Bills too seriously for the next few weeks. After all, can anyone remember what happened in an exhibition game a month into the regular season?

It's still summer. So running or playing golf in shorts and a t-shirt remains the top priority athletically speaking.

Space invader

Ever read a column that makes you want to race to the computer and type out a letter that begins with something along the lines of "Dear Idiot"?

Me too.

The column of the week in this category is from Bret Stephens of the Wall Streeet Journal. You can find it here. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Stephens gets off to a bad start here when he says the only people that will know Michael Jackson in a hundred years are "five or six cultural anthropologists and, possibly, a medical historian." Apparently Stephens has been reading Mary Kunz Goldman, since she expressed a very similar thought a while ago. (Note: Mary is no idiot and expresses her views much better than Stephens does.) As I wrote before, we'll probably be listening to Michael Jackson in 2109 because we can. If we had the technology to listen to Bach play his own work today, we would.

And later on, Stephens has a line about "uninteresting, detestable, loud or unaccomplished people: Paris Hilton, Princess Di, Keith Olbermann, Michael Jackson." I'm with him on Paris Hilton being uninteresting, but he should have stopped there. Princess Diana was placed in an impossible situation that you could argue eventually led to her death, but certainly used her platform to do important work concerning AIDS and land mines worldwide. Olbermann may come on a little too strong lately, but there's little doubt that he's smart and a first-rate communicator. Jackson probably is at least on the list of top five musical performers in the 20th century; he's another who never had a chance to live a "normal" life.

The main point of the column, though, deals with the concept of American celebrity. Stephens argues that Armstrong is the type of hero we should celebrate. Armstrong did his assigned job with Apollo and did it well. Then he faded out of the picture, turning up at the odd speech or public event but generally becoming something of a recluse.

Sure, it's nice that Armstrong isn't doing Viagra endorsements to earn spare change. A little dignity in our culture is always appreciated. But a happy medium between that and a disappearing act might have been welcome.

The space race essentially ended when Armstrong set foot on the moon, and so did much of the public's enthusiasm (which translates to funding of NASA by Congress). While I don't think Armstrong should be doing a lifetime of meet-and-greets, my perception is that he could have done more to keep the spirit burning a little brighter.

But that's not just my opinion. I first read it in Gordon Cooper's book. Cooper was the last of the Mercury astronauts to go into space. Cooper said John Glenn would have been a great choice to be the first man on the moon. Glenn, Cooper argued, would have been great at keeping us looking at the stars every so often.

I've been reading the Wall Street Journal regularly for more than a year now, and it does an excellent job on the news. I've yet, though, to find a columnist besides Peggy Noonan that is worth reading on a regular basis. As you may have guessed, Stephens missed the cut.

Leisure reading

There are plenty of stories out there about the problems magazines are having. It's interesting to see the warning signs, even when you are just a reader at home.

To wit:

1. I received a piece of direct mail from Sports Illustrated a couple of weeks ago. The subscription offer usually is something along the lines of 80 cents an issue, depending on how long you renew. The number can go up with a premium. This particular offer was for 39 cents an issue or so, so it was about $20 for a year -- and it included a gym bag. I renewed; I even have the gym bag already.

My subscription had quite a while before it ran out. So if it -- one of the big ones in the industry -- is slashing prices like that, it's easy to wonder what exactly is going on with the company.

2. The Sporting News recently switched from a weekly publication to a biweekly. The editorial content is different too, and quite interesting. But -- it already has taken a pair of issues "off", meaning that readers went four weeks between issues a couple of times.

3. Newsweek switched formats drastically earlier this summer, going to more analysis instead of trying to track down an extra fact or two. The publication has lowered its circulation guarantee drastically. I know the editors are working to get the hang of it, but so far I'm not sure I'd renew it right now. And Newsweek has been coming to my house (or my parents' house) for my entire life.

4. Paste magazine is relatively new, a handful of years. It mostly covers new music, but has a few movie and book reviews. I subscribed for a couple of years, mostly to pick up the free sampler CD that once in a while had some good songs on it, but dropped it a while back. There was something annoying about the way Paste sometimes would have an ad for a CD in one part of the magazine, and then an article on that CD and its band in another part.

I read a little while ago that its editors had to ask its subscribers and supporters for donations to keep the magazine alive. The move raised somewhere in the low six figures, and Paste is still publishing. You wonder how much longer it has, though.

Anyone who works at a newspaper shouldn't throw stones at another struggling literary form. I don't like the trendline for either medium.