Watch: Brown & Gray share Last to Know music video

first_imgBrown & Gray have released the music video for their new single Last to Know.The Nashville-based Anglo-American filmed the clip in Napa Valley, California. In it they are seen enjoying Wine Country and visiting locations including Jessup Cellars, Handwritten Wines and the Napa Valley Distillery.Watch the video:The duo – Kaci Brown and Sam Gray – recently performed at CMA Fest and they’ve been picking up support in the UK for Last to Know with plays on BBC Radio 2 and Country Hits Radio.Last year Brown & Gray released their debut single Top Down, which was championed as a Highway Find on the biggest national country music station in the US, Sirius XM’s The Highway. They were featured in Rolling Stone’s Top 10 Country Artists to watch in 2018, which brought an agency deal with William Morris Endeavor in Nashville leading to more than 30 festival shows including Stagecoach and Faster Horses amongst many others.A club remix package saw the duo’s music enter the Top 10 of the UK Dance Charts and one of the mixes was supported heavily by Radio Disney.The single spent a month in the Top 40 airplay chart on Billboard some 15 months after its original release – 10 million streams, 40,000 iTunes downloads and millions of YouTube views later.last_img read more

Bigger fires are here to stay in our sizzling Southland

first_imgTHERE’S something about the smell of a wildfire on the crisp, dry wind of October in Southern California that instantly transports me back to my days as a kid reporter in the “Inland Empire.” It was the early 1990s and I was working for the Riverside Press-Enterprise in the far-flung bureau of Banning (near the Morongo Casino and those life-sized dinosaurs). My beat stretched for miles and included the wide pass area and the adjacent stretches of San Bernardino mountains on one side, the San Jacinto mountains on the other. I soon discovered that this near-desert territory had four distinct seasons – winter, spring, summer and fire. Whenever the Santa Ana winds would come roaring through the pass in late summer and autumn, anything remotely hot could spark a fire. A cigarette tossed out of a speeding car on Interstate 10, the sparks from an arcing transformer, or the lightning from frequent, freaky flash-rain storms. One time, a devastating fire was inadvertently set by someone’s lawn mower. But the gigantafires that we experienced this week and four years ago in Southern California are part of a new and not so happy phenomenon, one likely to become common in the 21st century. In particularly fortuitous moment, “60 Minutes” aired a segment last Sunday night about megafires in the American Southwest even as one was forming in Southern California. I rarely watch the show, but had just spent two hours glued to live news coverage of the fires and didn’t have the energy to change the channel when the program began. Good thing, because it helped put in context the conflagrations exploding all around me. At the time of the firestorms of 2003, in which 22 people died and more than 3,000 buildings were destroyed, this type of monster blaze seemed an aberration brought on by a rare confluence of just the right factors. Apparently, I was wrong. Tom Boatner, chief of fire operations for the federal government, told the newsmagazine that fires are getting bigger and worse. In reference to a blaze this summer in Idaho, he said: “A fire of this size and this intensity in this country would have been extremely rare 15, 20 years ago. They’re commonplace these days.” Environmentalists and fire officials are noting that the megafires are a result of the perfect storm of a climate change, overenthusiastic land management, massive development and super-dry conditions that make the wet season shorter and the fire season longer. “Fires are burning hotter and bigger, becoming more damaging and dangerous to people and to property,” U.S. Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell told the San Francisco Chronicle last week. “Each year the fire season comes earlier and lasts longer.” What does this all mean? Clearly, it means Southern California, and in fact all of the Southwest, should get used to regular firestorms, just as the people of the Banning pass used to be used to the regular, and now comparatively mild brush fires of yore. Mariel Garza is a columnist and editorial writer for the Los Angeles Daily News. She blogs at Write to her by e-mail at [email protected] local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MOREGame Center: Chargers at Kansas City Chiefs, Sunday, 10 a.m.As the cops reporter, part of my responsibility was covering the region’s fires. During fire season, I often came home reeking of smoke after chasing California Department of Forestry crews down bumpy fire roads in the middle of the night, trying to get a handle on what was burning. Even for years after I stopped covering fires, that smell, like 1,000 crackling campfires, still had the power to wake me up in the middle of the night, ready to throw on some old jeans, jump into my car and follow the smoke. This musing does actually have a point, one that seems awfully relevant as much of Southern California was so recently reduced to a smoldering cinder. And this is it: Although I spent most of my life in Southern California – my younger years in the badly burned San Diego, and many of my adult ones chasing brush fires around Riverside and San Bernardino counties – I have never experienced anything like the firestorms of 2004 or 2007. Never. Not that I didn’t want to. The unfortunate truth about journalists is that – shamefully, secretly – part of us wants every bad situation to get worse. It just makes for a better story. But, thankfully, that never happened. The few “devastating” fires I’ve covered ate up a few isolated mountain communities and relatively little acreage, which bounced back within a couple of years. And sure, California has had some bad fires, like the Old Topanga Fire in which more than 200 homes burned in Malibu, and the Oakland Hills fire. Those fires were notable, however, not because they were huge, but because they occurred in such heavily populated areas. last_img read more

Politics played out on the soccer field

first_img AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MORE11 theater productions to see in Southern California this week, Dec. 27-Jan. 2In the 1998 cup, more than just sportsmanship was at stake when the American players faced the national team of Iran. As soon as the whistle ended the game, thousands of Iranians poured into the streets to celebrate their team’s victory. It was also a victory for 45 million Iranians. As the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the hard-line spiritual leader of the country stated, the players had made the nation happy. For the Iranians, the game symbolized a triumph in the political rivalry with the U.S. It was a way of paying back the “Great Satan” for the American support of the Shah and of Iraq during the war of 1980-1988. Yet, the game was also a spur for the Clinton administration and the Iranian government to resume diplomatic relations. The game between Iran and the U.S. was insignificant in determining who would eventually win the World Cup. Neither team had a chance. The usual contenders were Germany, Italy, England, France, Argentina and Brazil. However, small countries feel that they have won the cup if they manage to win a single game against one of these major teams. Thus, when North Korean players defeated Italy in 1966, they went home heroes while the Italian players were welcomed by irate fans throwing lemons at them. Just winning a game against one of these rich countries suggests to poor or small countries, lacking a winning tradition in soccer, that although they may not equal the major world powers – economically, politically or in other ways – they can compete in one area. And for a moment, they feel that they are better than the defeated country, not just in soccer, but in every other aspect of life. It’s not true, obviously, but soccer fever is very strong because it is the world sport, something Americans can only understand if they put the popularity of American football, baseball, basketball and hockey together. And victory on the soccer field boosts the national ego. Wouldn’t it be great if all the world’s problems could be decided on the soccer field? Domenico Maceri teaches foreign languages at Allan Hancock College in Santa Maria.160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! “Si, señor. It’s war” read the headline in an English newspaper, a few days before the national teams of England and Argentina met in their semifinal soccer game during the World Cup in Mexico in 1986. The headline was an exaggeration, of course. It was just a game. Yet, the Falklands war was fresh in everybody’s mind, and for the Argentine players, a soccer victory would help make up for their loss in the war. This year’s World Cup, held in Germany, is not a war, but there is plenty of nationalism at stake. The popularity of the game throughout the world is due in part to its simplicity, but also to the national fervor that a winning team creates. When France plays Germany or Italy plays England, sports may create a little competition, but history and ancient rivalries make that competition important. Fourteen years ago, when Holland defeated Germany in the European championship, delirious Dutch fans threw their bicycles in the air and shouted that they had got their “bikes back,” a reference to World War II, when the Nazis confiscated all the bicycles in Holland. And when England beat Germany in 1966 to win the World Cup, many English fans saw a repeat of World War II. The fans’ celebrations suggested that much. last_img read more