Trivial Tales: Being on Jeopardy, Pt. 2

One thing that being in a rock and roll band for any length of time requires is the ability to endure disappointment. Constant, bitter, crushing disappointment. If you take it to heart every time you get passed over for a gig, ignored by a crowd, or rejected in any of the million other ways a musician can get a thumbs-down, you won’t last long. It was my degree from the “school of rock” that, more than anything else, helped me reach the goal of becoming a contestant on Jeopardy. Lots of people are smart, and lots of people are good at trivia. But I took seven tests and traveled to 3 regional auditions over the course of 10 years in my quest to be a Jeopardy contestant. I’m smart, don’t get me wrong – a dummy isn’t going to make it to the Jeopardy stage, no matter how hard he or she tries – but it’s my extremely hard head, not the spongy stuff inside it, that got me to the show.

While I was good at games like Trivial Pursuit, and had been an enthusiastic participant on my high school and community college’s quiz bowl teams, I’d never considered trying to be on Jeopardy until I was in my mid-30’s and the show held a “contestant search” event at a local shopping mall. There, I aced a short trivia quiz and was given an invitation to attend a second test and possible audition at a local hotel and conference center.

If I remember correctly, there were 50-60 of us who took the longer contestant quiz (50 questions) that day. Out of that group, about a dozen lucky souls were called up by name and asked to participate in the screen test/mock game that is still part of the audition process. I was not called.  But, for me, that was the motivator … I’d finally caught the bug: I wanted to be on Jeopardy!

The online tests started a few years later, and from 2009-2015 I took the online test three times, and was invited to three regional auditions: Charlotte, NC; Nashville, TN; and, finally, Atlanta, GA.

At those auditions, I took yet another test — that year’s “contestant quiz” — and participated in a screen test that consisted of playing a few minutes of Jeopardy with two other wanna-be contestants, and being interviewed — usually by Maggie.

Each time I thought I did reasonably well, but I probably got a little better through the process: I know that I was less nervous and a little less personally invested each time.

Looking back, I think it was my experience as a musician that allowed me to continue testing and auditioning, year after year, with no way of knowing if I’d ever make to the ‘big show.’ Knowing the drill from years of working with booking agents, club owners, and various entertainment industry functionaries, I took the Jeopardy staff members who’d conducted the auditions at their word when they said that if we didn’t receive a call in the next 18 months we should try again, that contestants often audition several times before being selected.

Also, I listened to, remembered, and took to heart the coaching that Maggie and other Jeopardy staffers provided at the auditions, tips such as:

  • Speak up
  • Be yourself
  • Have fun

… and more specifically …

  • Always identify the category and dollar amount (not: “That one again for $400” or “the same category for $1000”)
  • Shorten the category name to keep the game moving
  • Wait until the clue has been read in its entirety before trying to buzz in (hitting the clicker early results in a “lock out” of a fraction of a second — an eternity in Jeopardy time)
  • Click that buzzer and keep on clicking until someone’s name is called
  • Wait until you are called on to answer
  • Give your answer in the form of a question, and …
  • Give your answer in the form of a question!

I mention that last one twice because, well, it’s important, right?

What is “yes?”

At the third audition, in Atlanta this past spring, I found myself more interested in the behavior of the other potential players than in my own performance. I was thinking a bit like a casting director, I suppose, with an eye towards who had an interesting story, a unique vocal inflection, or a particularly quick buzzer finger. There were some standout characters, so while I was pleased with how I did, I wasn’t particularly hopeful about my chances of being selected.

I was both surprised and pleased when, only a few weeks into the new season of Jeopardy, my phone lit up with a caller ID reading “Culver City, CA.” It was Glenn, one of the show’s producers, with an invitation to be a contestant on the show in about three weeks.

Sure thing, I said.

Here goes nothing, I thought.

Rob Russell

One sweater vest to rule them all!



Trivial Tales: Being on Jeopardy, Pt. 1

I’m a two-time “Jeopardy Champion.”  I’m a lot of other things, too — a husband, a Dad, a musician, a writer, a teacher, an administrator, a cynic — but being a winner (and, eventually, a loser) on Jeopardy is one thing I honestly never thought I would be, or could be. Pretty surreal stuff!

I thought I’d write something to try to answer some of the questions friends and family members have asked about getting on the show and playing the game, including the most important question of all:

What’s Alex Trebek really like?

So, let’s start there.

Honestly, I don’t know enough to say. I was in his presence about six hours total, and only exchanged a few words with him during, and briefly after, each of the three shows on which I appeared. He was friendly, handsome, and very good at his job. He’s got a dark, but not unhealthy, tan. He smells nice.

His exchanges with the studio audience were mostly humorous and low key. Between shows (the Jeopardy crew tape a week’s worth of shows — five — in a day)  he walked to the edge of the stage and took questions. His wit is clearly on the dry side, and he seemed just as pleased to let a seemingly off-hand joke bomb as he did when it hit. He’s comfortable in his polite, slightly aloof Canadian skin.

As to his intellect, staff members have said that Alex has taken the new contestant quiz (the one we take at the actual auditions) himself almost every year the show has run — going on 21 now —  and done quite well.

What I was most impressed with was his ability to navigate the categories and clues during each game so smoothly that his delivery appeared rehearsed. But there was no way it could be, as Alex does not get to see the games — which are selected at random for that day by a third party — or the categories and clues within them until the morning of each day’s taping. He has all of three hours to go through five games’ worth of categories and clues and scan for possible pronunciation or delivery trouble spots.

When I was there, Trebek misspoke or slightly garbled clues only twice that I can recall during the six games I watched or was a part of. These slight errors didn’t affect game-play in the least, and during commercial breaks they were “fixed” on the spot by speedily orchestrated live voice-over dubs by Alex himself. I was impressed. The man is smooth!

On top of that, during the games he has to quickly identify and read the clues as they are called, in no particular order (and sometimes in purposefully weird order, e.g. by Arthur Chu) by each contestant. All he appears to have in front of him is a stack of papers, so what he does to organize the material or anticipate the next clue, I have no idea. Whatever his method, it works, and it appears effortless.


Alex Trebek Rob Russell Jeopardy November 2015

Seriously, I miss the mustache. Don’t you?


He does seem a bit standoffish regarding the contestants, but that could be to avoid any appearance of favoritism, to allow the producers and make-up artists to get to the contestants and do their jobs, or just to keep himself un-frazzled and in his own zone. As I learned, the energy generated behind the contestant podium is viral, and different in every game, based on the personalities and attitudes of the players involved. I’d wager that a host would be just as likely as a contestant to get swept up in this energy and get ‘thrown off their game.’

More over the next few days regarding how I made it to the show, what my preparation was like, what happened on the days of the tapings, and how good In-N-Out Burger really is.

Vapor Trails Delay Giveaway 

Enter CME’s Seymour Duncan Vapor Trails Delay giveaway … Winner selected on Xmas Eve!

Review of Degrees of Inequality (2014)

Mettler, S. (2014). Degrees of inequality: How the politics of higher education sabotaged the American dream. Philadephia: Perseus Books. ISBN: 978-0-465-04496-2

Suzanne Mettler’s book Degrees of Inequality is sub-titled, “How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream.” What is most satisfying about this text is its focus on the often mysterious how; politicians and media talking heads are constantly speculating on the why behind political actions, but the intricate mechanisms of how are often unknown or simply ignored as unimportant. The picture that slowly develops as Mettler’s tome builds towards its crescendo – the housing market crash and the window of opportunity it permits for reform (roughly, 2007-2011) – is a dark one, dominated by a trinity of villains: untended policy, political polarization, and plutocracy. And while the author provides ample evidence of both how higher education is still an essential part of the American Dream and that the “sabotage” of that dream has been conducted primarily by our elected representatives, what she does not offer in ample supply are solutions. Thus, this reader is left with the feeling that his worst fears have been confirmed: yes, there are monsters in the basement; and no, there is no way to kill them.

Mettler elaborates on a thesis that few of us involved in higher education administration would disagree with; that is, that partisan politics, not a dearth of good ideas or reform initiatives, have undermined the progress and promise of post-WW II higher education reforms like the GI Bill and the Higher Education Act of 1965. According to Mettler, political polarization, especially since 1994, has led to an unwillingness in both parties to participate in basic policy maintenance, allowing effective policies to “drift” into ineffectiveness (e.g. student aid that has failed to keep up with rising tuition costs), and for unintended consequences (e.g. growth of for-profit colleges), policy design flaws (e.g. Pell Grants have no cost-of-living adjustments), and the effects of other, unrelated policies (e.g. the rising costs of K-12, prisons, and Medicare in the states) to re-shape what Mettler refers to as the “policyscape” and, sometimes, work against their intended purposes.

The author contends, rather effectively, that partisan rancor has resulted in a virtual plutocracy — a government by, and for, the wealthy — and in a higher education system that clearly privileges the already privileged. Equal access does not mean equal success, and Mettler demonstrates that this is even truer today than it was 40 years ago, as gains in retention and graduation rates among students from middle and low income families have not kept pace with those experienced by students in the top quartile of family income; among some groups of students, including African-American and Hispanic college students in the lower two quartiles, retention and graduation rates are actually lower than they were decades ago.

While Mettler’s book closes on a note of hope, speculating on how the “reform window” that existed in 2007-2011 might lead to eventual opportunities for greater reform, the overwhelming message of this book is that, while the U.S. needs more college graduates than ever before to remain a global economic and political power, the political gridlock of partisanship has made LBJ’s dream of Americans having access to “all the education they can take” a still-distant goal.

I selected this book because I felt that the author’s views were likely similar to my own regarding how the many inequalities inherent in our current higher education system have been created, and exacerbated, by the influence of moneyed interests, thoughtless political expediency, and bitter partisanship. While Mettler’s book isn’t revalatory in terms of content, the author does go into a satisfying degree of depth regarding the causal factors in this scenario; in addition, Mettler provides analysis of empirical data, such as state spending trends, matriculation and graduation rates, and income differentials, that strengthen her arguments in some illuminating ways.

For instance, I was unaware of spending mandates in K-12, prisons, and Medicare that help to “squeeze” higher education funding on the state level. I was also ignorant regarding the fact that tax deductions related to higher education are a drain on direct aid like Pell Grants, as well as an example of a policy that promotes inequality, as it strongly favors families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 per year who have sufficient income to take advantage of the deductions. While I knew that default rates on federally-backed loans for students at for-profit colleges were higher than those for students at public and non-profit privates, I was unaware of the complex web of support, complicity, and opportunism that included elements of both parties and existed to ensure continued federal support of for-profits in Congress.

All things considered, the elements of Mettler’s book and argument that are likely to stick with me are the many voices she used to connect the idea of the “American Dream” to higher education. At various times she quotes or references founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, and no portion of this book is more powerful than the introduction to Chapter Two, where the author invokes the words of President Lyndon Johnson on the occasion of signing the Higher Education Act of 1965 into law. Speaking to those gathered to watch the signing at Southwest Texas State College, his alma mater, Johnson stated:

And when you look into the faces of your students and your children and your grandchildren, tell them that you were there when it began. Tell them that a promise has been made to them. Tell them that the leadership of your country believes it is the obligation of your Nation to provide and permit and assist every child born in these borders to receive all the education that he can take. (as cited in Mettler, 2014, p. 51)

What I found the most frustrating regarding Mettler’s book was that, beyond opportunities available in response to economic crises and a call for strong individual leadership (as exemplified in the text by politicians like President Johnson and, more recently, Jim Webb), the author offers no clear solution to the “fine mess’ we’ve gotten ourselves into. While access to higher education has increased, the advantages gained by the completion of a college education are still not available for those in the greatest need of those advantages: minorities, the poor, and working class adults. The only changes that could provide a meaningful window for higher education reform are those that are tremendous in scale: campaign finance reforms, electoral reforms, procedural reforms in the Senate and House. As the author points out, the United States has never lacked for “innovative ways to promote higher education so that it would serve crucial and ambitious public purposes” (p. 200). Innovation, however, requires the oxygen of opportunity in order to thrive, and the “policyscape” Mettler describes is an airless one.



Man Poses as Target on Facebook to Hilariously Troll Angry Customers


When customers started angrily commenting on Target’s Facebook page about its new gender-neutral toys policy, this Facebook user saw a comedic opportunity.

Mike Melgaard made a fake Facebook page and pretended to be a Target customer service representative, and then responded to the outrage over the company’s decision to stop labeling toys and other items by gender.

“I definitely side with Target and support their decision wholeheartedly,” Melgaard told AdWeek. “That being said, this was, for me, more about the laughs. I absolutely love satirical humor, and I think America could use a little more laughter.”

Target provided this statement to AdWeek in response: “At Target, we are committed to providing outstanding guest service to our guests wherever we engage with them—in our stores, online, or on our social pages. Clearly this individual was not speaking on behalf of Target.”

Here’s some of Melgaard’s best work before his…

View original post 5 more words

7 Things About “The League” Cast that You Probably Didn’t Know


If you’re not watching “The League,” or at the very least, if you don’t have the show in your Instant Netflix queue yet, then you don’t get to sit at the cool kids table. “It’s Always Sunny” and “Archer” tend to get most of the Internet attention when it comes to F/X shows, but it’s “The League” that — in its third season, at least — is the most consistently funny. It’s like an ensemble version of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” that just happens to revolve around a fantasy football league, though the premise is tertiary to the actual shenanigans. Also, never take fantasy football advice from anyone on the show. They’re is some kind of pansy 8-person league where everybody’s team is stacked with studs, and it’s a snake draft. Snake drafts are for amateurs.

Anyway, it’s an awesome show, which has featured guests appearances this season alone from Jeff…

View original post 692 more words

So THIS is a “Transparent Overdrive!” One of the first Paul Cochrane Tim Overdrive/Boost Pedals

Was looking for a good discussion of “transparent overdrive,” but this is that and a lot more.


So recently there’s been a lot of focus on “Transparent Overdrives.”  It seems to be something that lies in the realm of boutique guitar pedals (although certain companies have made inroads into this idea, by hook or by crook).  The basic idea is that it adds volume/gain/drive to your pedal, but only as if you reached over to your amp and cranked it up accordingly.  So, if you’re not in the situation where you’re close to your amp’s controls, or heck your amp just doesn’t get higher volume/gain/drive on its own…you turn to one of these pedals.  It’s not the kind of overdrive that imparts its own “thing” to the game like a tube screamer would (and definitely not  like a distortion pedal would, think the ProCo RAT here).  It’s kinda like hitting a “More” button.

So anyhow, the tag of “Transparent Overdrive” got put on the Tim pedal that…

View original post 1,333 more words

VHT Special 6 – modded

Hmmm … An amp project might be cool?!

Put on a coat

At the end of last summer I splashed out and treated myself on a new amp, my very first ‘new’ amp!

I was on the look out for a small tube amp that would suit my needs – i.e. plodding away in the front room, and not for gigging. The VHT Special 6 kept popping up with very favourable reviews, so I bit the bullet and went for it. I opted for the head and cab version.

This is a great little amp, straight out of the box, hand-wired, with a  12AX7 preamp tube and a 6V6 output tube. There is a boost feature, which is footswitchable, although the huge jump in volume isn’t the most practical. It can get pretty loud when pushed, in a home-practice context. There is also a half power option for late night playing.

Simple controls – one tone pot and volume pot. Hi and…

View original post 569 more words

Guns N’ Roses’ “Sweet Child O’ Mine” comes under plagiarism charges

Seriously — if this isn’t a case of actual musical plagiarism, it’s the craziest coincidence I’ve ever heard. Add the fact that the bands were on the same label, and it can’t be accidental.

Consequence of Sound

The authenticity of one of rock ‘n’ roll’s most iconic songs has come under question. Recently, Australian music website Max TV uncovered the striking similarities between Guns N’ Roses’ “Sweet Child O’ Mine” and “Unpublished Critics”, a song by Australian rock band Australian Crawl.

“Unpublished Critics”, which was released six years prior to “Sweet Child O’ Mine”, features “the same chugging chord progression, a similarly-sweeping lead break, the verse melody, and the elongated one-syllable vocal in the chorus,” claims Max TV.

“Unpublished Critics” is by no means an unknown song. In Australia, the album which it appeared on, Sirocco, peaked at No. 1 on the charts. Australian Crawl broke up in 1986, a year before the release of GNR’s Appetite For Destruction, which featured “Sweet Child O’ Mine”. Interestingly enough, both Sirocco and Appetite For Destruction was released in the US by Geffen Records.

James Reyne, a member of Australian…

View original post 40 more words

The Univox EC-80 Project, Pt. 1

Since the People of the Interwebz have been so kind to offer information, insight, and detailed tutorials that I’ve found incredibly helpful in pursuing my various DIY projects, I thought I’d contribute by detailing my fix-it process with the Univox EC-80 and including links to many of the resources that I’ve found helpful. I hope all of the folks whose pages, words and images I link to will consider this blog post to be thanks and acknowledgment for all of the help they’ve given me!

So, back in early April I spotted an auction on eBay that caught my eye: a “not working, for parts or repair” Univox tape echo. I have  a saved search on eBay for broken guitar effects, and the Univox was listed under that; although it’s not exclusively a guitar effect, it is best known as part of the early Van Halen guitar sound, most specifically the ‘dive bomb’ effects at the end of Eddie Van Halen’s famous “Eruption” solo track on their first album. It’s no one-trick-pony, though. Browsing through YouTube I found some good demos of working EC-80s, and I was definitely hooked. I created a still-growing playlist here, if you’re interested:

I made what I thought was a low but possibly winning bid — about half of the supposed current value of the unit — and, what do you know, a few days later the old black box is on my kitchen table! My 3 year old assisted me in an initial “will it turn on?” test, the first step in the fix-it process: the power indicator light came on and, more importantly, the tape motor started whirring gently. Very good news.

univox tape echo

Plugging things into things

I’d already hit the interwebz via google and various guitar and gear forums for a basic primer on this unit’s issues and quirks. The biggest one seemed to be the scarcity of the Apollon HD-5000 tape cartridges that were the only exact match for the EC-80. My unit arrived without a tape (which I knew would be the case) but lucky for me gear DIYers had been working to find ways around tape issues for awhile. There were companies that made repros of the old Apollons,  would repair and/or put new tape in old or broken cartridges. Tape nuts had also posted instructions on repairing the Apollons DIY, and discovered that old PlayTapes would fit the EC-80 with some modification to the tapes or to the unit itself.

Hedging my bets, I nabbed a broken Apollon cartridge ($20) and two working PlayTapes ($10 each) off ebay; about a week later, tapes were in hand, and I was ready to see if this box was going to make any noise!

To be continued …