The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame causes controversy yet again with its list of Nominees...
...and TRUST me, we'll get in to that here very soon. For now, it's all about the news.
A preservation of my history and occasional insights into the present
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Album Review: Soundgarden - "Telephantasm" - Orlando rock music | Examiner.com
Reuniting with a greatest hits set after previously releasing a greatest hits set? That takes some guts.
...but they pulled off a pretty good package, overall. Still a little bummed that the Alternative NRG version of "New Damage" (with Brian May!) didn't make the cut...
...but they pulled off a pretty good package, overall. Still a little bummed that the Alternative NRG version of "New Damage" (with Brian May!) didn't make the cut...
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Reissue Review: David Bowie - "Station To Station" - Orlando rock music | Examiner.com
Nassau Coliseum Show...good. "Remastered" album...bad.
No, seriously. When listening to a classic Bowie record gives me a splitting headache, that's not cool. At all. The concert sounds great, though...
No, seriously. When listening to a classic Bowie record gives me a splitting headache, that's not cool. At all. The concert sounds great, though...
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Sacha Baron Cohen confirmed to portray Freddie Mercury - Orlando Rock Music Examiner.com
Brian May has confirmed that Sacha Baron Cohen will portray Queen lead singer Freddie Mercury in an upcoming biopic.
You didn't really think I'd let this go at just a news blurb, did yeh?
I mean, we're talking about my favorite band in history, here. EVER. And now I see this?
A lot of people are gonna be pissed. And I can understand why. Me, I'm Not.
I get it. In playing Borat and (much more to the point) Bruno, Cohen can do over-the-top flamboyant. That's been proven. He could probably play the public/performing side of Mercury better than most actors working right now.
Away from all that, though, Mercury was an intensely private person. A little more subdued; not like a night-and-day difference or anything, but certainly not the bombastic force of nature people saw in a public setting. I think Cohen could do that, as well. He seems like a rather underrated actor, truth be told.
I'm looking forward to it, really. Seems like an awful long wait, since they don't even start shooting until next year...
You didn't really think I'd let this go at just a news blurb, did yeh?
I mean, we're talking about my favorite band in history, here. EVER. And now I see this?
A lot of people are gonna be pissed. And I can understand why. Me, I'm Not.
I get it. In playing Borat and (much more to the point) Bruno, Cohen can do over-the-top flamboyant. That's been proven. He could probably play the public/performing side of Mercury better than most actors working right now.
Away from all that, though, Mercury was an intensely private person. A little more subdued; not like a night-and-day difference or anything, but certainly not the bombastic force of nature people saw in a public setting. I think Cohen could do that, as well. He seems like a rather underrated actor, truth be told.
I'm looking forward to it, really. Seems like an awful long wait, since they don't even start shooting until next year...
Friday, September 17, 2010
Mobile Post 07
Monday, September 13, 2010
David Bowie’s "Station To Station" set for re-release - Orlando rock music | Examiner.com
The record that spawned The Thin White Duke returns on September 28...
Already got it in the mail today. Review forthcoming...
Already got it in the mail today. Review forthcoming...
Friday, September 10, 2010
Mike Portnoy walks away from Dream Theater - Orlando rock music | Examiner.com
Longtime Dream Theater drummer (and founding member) Mike Portnoy shocked the rock world by announcing he was leaving his long-time band.
If it just got real cold under your feet alluva sudden, now you know why. And yes, there will be more said on this soon...
If it just got real cold under your feet alluva sudden, now you know why. And yes, there will be more said on this soon...
Album Review: Stone Sour - "Audio Secrecy" - Orlando rock music | Examiner.com
Audio Secrecy looks to continue Stone Sour's evolutionary leap in to greatness.
When I say it "might go down as the best mainstream Rock record of 2010," I'm not even ribbing.
When I say it "might go down as the best mainstream Rock record of 2010," I'm not even ribbing.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Battle Of Evermore: Apple vs. Google
Article first published on BlogCritics as The Battle Of Evermore: Apple vs. Google
Do you think that, when Led Zeppelin recorded “The Battle Of Evermore”, that they ever envisioned a digital battlefield?
The Apple King took his bow and then surveyed his gold
The Google Prince embraced the gloom and challenged the iPhone
Oh, digital services fight to the music industry’s delight
The Android rides in force tonight, and time will tell us all
Oh, throw down your mouse and keyboard, race now to my mobile phone
Side by side we wait to see who’s the biggest of them all
On September 7, the story broke from Wired.com that Google is getting serious about its oft-rumored challenge to the Apple iTunes/iPod/iAnythingElse dynasty. The internet giant is in talks with several major record labels preparing to launch its own digital music service - which would be available not only online through Google but through the iPhone’s biggest competition to date, the Android OS - by year’s end.
Many have tried to end Apple’s stranglehold on the digital music market and to force the gadget giant to relinquish some of its control over the music industry. Amazon, (the legitimized) Napster, and many others have failed to cut in to iTunes’s 70% of the digital market share.
Many in the music industry would love to see someone make it happen, as Apple has reportedly become very restrictive in its demands to labels when offering their music. With the lion’s share of the sales, Apple also has the lion’s share of the power to dictate file format, quality, pricing, you name it. With an much more established presence on the world wide web and, thanks to Android-based phones selling at the rate of 200,000 a day, Google now stands as the biggest challenge to Apple’s music industry dominance - and they’re gearing up for a Middle Earth-sized battle.
I hear consumers clicking down in the valley below
They’re waiting for an end to monopoly, waiting for Google to go
The Apple corporation now holds the seeds of happiness
Their coffers are rich from innovation there, which they do not forget (no, no)
Oh, digital services fight to the music industry’s delight
The Apples turn to brown and black, Steve Jobs's face is red
Oh, the war upon us nigh, choose your service and buy
Who will win - Android or iPad? Labels want to know
Oh well, the hour is long, but downloads never slow
Apple now has the prize, that Google has coveted so
Looking to capitalize on the oncoming storm sure to rage when digital giants clash, many within the music industry can’t wait for Google to throw down the gauntlet.
Former Universal Music Group executive (now a counsel at Loeb & Loeb) Larry Kenswil illustrates how the battle can spill over to the mobile market, explaining, “There’s no dearth of music available on a computer right now, but Google can still have an impact on the cellphone or any connected device.”
Simon Wheeler, who heads up the digital end of the London-based Beggars Banquet label, says, “Google has a wealth of data, from YouTube, as well as from search, that can inform on what people are consuming and looking for music wise.”
Taking it a step further, an unidentified label executive says, “Finally here’s an entity with the reach, resources and wherewithal to take on iTunes as a formidable competitor by tying it into search and Android mobile platform. What you’ll have is a very powerful player in the market that’s good for the music business.”
Another unidentified executive for a label currently in negotiations with Google is a little more careful. “We’re cautiously optimistic because Google has great scale and reach but doesn’t have a track record in selling stuff.”
The pain of war matters not, as long as you have the most cash
For one shall stand, one shall fall, when these giants clash
Sing as you click and buy with more confidence than before
Take comfort that the Apple/Google brawl will be so bold
Oh, digital services fight to the music industry’s delight
The Industry’s coffers writ in gold to take the power back (take it back)
At last the sun is shining, the market’s open wide
With digital offers from companies, on a whim you can buy
Oh, take it back, take it back...
While the archaic debate rages on from dinosaurs like U2’s manager Paul McGuinness about illegal file-sharing, it’s clear that Apple has turned a huge profit - not to mention revolutionized the music industry - by regulating the practice in a form that many consumers now can not do without. Google looks to take the challenge head-on by applying its mastery of web (and now phone) applications to the digital download market, hoping the buying public can rally around a known and trusted name other than Apple. The Battle of Evermore begins this Christmas, and it may not end for a long time.
Do you think that, when Led Zeppelin recorded “The Battle Of Evermore”, that they ever envisioned a digital battlefield?
The Apple King took his bow and then surveyed his gold
The Google Prince embraced the gloom and challenged the iPhone
Oh, digital services fight to the music industry’s delight
The Android rides in force tonight, and time will tell us all
Oh, throw down your mouse and keyboard, race now to my mobile phone
Side by side we wait to see who’s the biggest of them all
On September 7, the story broke from Wired.com that Google is getting serious about its oft-rumored challenge to the Apple iTunes/iPod/iAnythingElse dynasty. The internet giant is in talks with several major record labels preparing to launch its own digital music service - which would be available not only online through Google but through the iPhone’s biggest competition to date, the Android OS - by year’s end.Many have tried to end Apple’s stranglehold on the digital music market and to force the gadget giant to relinquish some of its control over the music industry. Amazon, (the legitimized) Napster, and many others have failed to cut in to iTunes’s 70% of the digital market share.
Many in the music industry would love to see someone make it happen, as Apple has reportedly become very restrictive in its demands to labels when offering their music. With the lion’s share of the sales, Apple also has the lion’s share of the power to dictate file format, quality, pricing, you name it. With an much more established presence on the world wide web and, thanks to Android-based phones selling at the rate of 200,000 a day, Google now stands as the biggest challenge to Apple’s music industry dominance - and they’re gearing up for a Middle Earth-sized battle.
I hear consumers clicking down in the valley below
They’re waiting for an end to monopoly, waiting for Google to go
The Apple corporation now holds the seeds of happiness
Their coffers are rich from innovation there, which they do not forget (no, no)
Oh, digital services fight to the music industry’s delight
The Apples turn to brown and black, Steve Jobs's face is red
Oh, the war upon us nigh, choose your service and buy
Who will win - Android or iPad? Labels want to know
Oh well, the hour is long, but downloads never slow
Apple now has the prize, that Google has coveted so
Looking to capitalize on the oncoming storm sure to rage when digital giants clash, many within the music industry can’t wait for Google to throw down the gauntlet.
Former Universal Music Group executive (now a counsel at Loeb & Loeb) Larry Kenswil illustrates how the battle can spill over to the mobile market, explaining, “There’s no dearth of music available on a computer right now, but Google can still have an impact on the cellphone or any connected device.”
Simon Wheeler, who heads up the digital end of the London-based Beggars Banquet label, says, “Google has a wealth of data, from YouTube, as well as from search, that can inform on what people are consuming and looking for music wise.”
Taking it a step further, an unidentified label executive says, “Finally here’s an entity with the reach, resources and wherewithal to take on iTunes as a formidable competitor by tying it into search and Android mobile platform. What you’ll have is a very powerful player in the market that’s good for the music business.”
Another unidentified executive for a label currently in negotiations with Google is a little more careful. “We’re cautiously optimistic because Google has great scale and reach but doesn’t have a track record in selling stuff.”
The pain of war matters not, as long as you have the most cash
For one shall stand, one shall fall, when these giants clash
Sing as you click and buy with more confidence than before
Take comfort that the Apple/Google brawl will be so bold
Oh, digital services fight to the music industry’s delight
The Industry’s coffers writ in gold to take the power back (take it back)
At last the sun is shining, the market’s open wide
With digital offers from companies, on a whim you can buy
Oh, take it back, take it back...
While the archaic debate rages on from dinosaurs like U2’s manager Paul McGuinness about illegal file-sharing, it’s clear that Apple has turned a huge profit - not to mention revolutionized the music industry - by regulating the practice in a form that many consumers now can not do without. Google looks to take the challenge head-on by applying its mastery of web (and now phone) applications to the digital download market, hoping the buying public can rally around a known and trusted name other than Apple. The Battle of Evermore begins this Christmas, and it may not end for a long time.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Axl Rose’s Appetite For The Destruction Of Guns N’ Roses
Article first published as Axl Rose’s Appetite For The Destruction Of Guns N’ Roses on Blogcritics, of course...
No sooner than right after the first post goes live, it happens again. So much for the “odd cosmic coincidence happening in threes” theory.
This time, it was at Dublin, Ireland’s O2 Arena. Guns N’ Roses had arrived three hours late (translated to GN’R time: right on schedule) to play a show there.
Partway in to their most famous song, “Welcome To The Jungle”, an errant bottle flies toward the stage. (Whether or not it hit Axl or anyone else is unknown.) Axl Rose stops the song and tells the crowd, “Here’s the deal - one more bottle and we go home. It’s up to you. We would like to stay - do you want us to stay? We want to stay. We want to have fun. If you don’t want to have fun, all you gotta do is let us know. We’ve got no problem; we’ll be on our way.” Despite a chorus of boos, the band restarted the song - only this time the response is hundreds of plastic bottles being hurled. Guns N’ Roses, instead of living up to Axl’s word, stuck it out for another 20 minutes.
After the continuous volley wouldn’t stop, Axl Rose walks off the stage with the rest of the band. The promoters take to the stage, explain that they are having “technical difficulties” (read: a problem with keeping stuff from being launched at the stage and desperately trying to talk the band in to going back out) and asked the crowd to refrain from throwing anything at the performers. After half an hour of no show - during which many people left - the band took the stage again and played another 90 minutes (to, by that point, an almost half-empty arena).
The promoters spoke to the press after the debacle, saying that, "Despite his continued appeals, having tried to continue performing for 22 minutes, people continued throwing unknown substances leaving artist with no choice but to leave the stage." The fact that Guns N’ Roses had a "long history for being late on stage" was acknowledged, but the promoters also added, "NO artist should be subjected to missiles and unknown substances being thrown at them."
It’s already been established that, in that respect, they’re 100% right. And, no matter how late he was or how terrible Rose’s performance was (which seems to be the other factor in the bottle barrage), that attack wasn’t even called for, much less earned. All the credit in the world should be given to Rose and the band (who tried valiantly to salvage the show despite the crowd’s - and Rose’s - best efforts) for carrying on in the face of a full-on revolt that could have gotten dangerously out-of-hand.
However, by this stage in the game, some of the blame also has to be laid at Rose’s feet. This isn’t 1991 anymore. Back then, Rose could get away with being that late because they were the biggest band in the world. That and the blame for the consistent tardiness could be laid at the feet of others.
Nineteen years later, Chinese Democracy - an album that took eighteen years to see the light of day - became modern music’s equivalent of the Hindenberg. The band would have lost its lustre if they were still together, but that decline is compounded by the fact that Axl is the only one left. He’s the only common factor in the band being late to perform almost two decades ago and today. He also seems to believe that Guns N’ Roses is still the biggest thing going today and that he can get away with having that same arrogant swagger.
Buying a day planner of some sort wouldn’t hurt the man one bit. Hell, Google Maps will tell you how long it takes to get somewhere! Technology has removed that excuse altogether! More than that, though, Axl Rose needs to sharpen his performance skills and realize that the Guns N’ Roses name is not only not what it once was, but that it needs to be salvaged after this set of European shows if it even has a chance of surviving.
When they were the biggest band on the planet, Guns N’ Roses could barely get booked anywhere because of the trouble they brought to the table. Times are vastly different, but yet Rose is still carrying on as if this is his heyday. If this band has a chance of playing future shows...if Guns N’ Roses even has a chance of surviving...Axl Rose is going to have to do a lot of work on turning around his reputation.
No sooner than right after the first post goes live, it happens again. So much for the “odd cosmic coincidence happening in threes” theory.
This time, it was at Dublin, Ireland’s O2 Arena. Guns N’ Roses had arrived three hours late (translated to GN’R time: right on schedule) to play a show there.
Partway in to their most famous song, “Welcome To The Jungle”, an errant bottle flies toward the stage. (Whether or not it hit Axl or anyone else is unknown.) Axl Rose stops the song and tells the crowd, “Here’s the deal - one more bottle and we go home. It’s up to you. We would like to stay - do you want us to stay? We want to stay. We want to have fun. If you don’t want to have fun, all you gotta do is let us know. We’ve got no problem; we’ll be on our way.” Despite a chorus of boos, the band restarted the song - only this time the response is hundreds of plastic bottles being hurled. Guns N’ Roses, instead of living up to Axl’s word, stuck it out for another 20 minutes.
After the continuous volley wouldn’t stop, Axl Rose walks off the stage with the rest of the band. The promoters take to the stage, explain that they are having “technical difficulties” (read: a problem with keeping stuff from being launched at the stage and desperately trying to talk the band in to going back out) and asked the crowd to refrain from throwing anything at the performers. After half an hour of no show - during which many people left - the band took the stage again and played another 90 minutes (to, by that point, an almost half-empty arena).
The promoters spoke to the press after the debacle, saying that, "Despite his continued appeals, having tried to continue performing for 22 minutes, people continued throwing unknown substances leaving artist with no choice but to leave the stage." The fact that Guns N’ Roses had a "long history for being late on stage" was acknowledged, but the promoters also added, "NO artist should be subjected to missiles and unknown substances being thrown at them."
It’s already been established that, in that respect, they’re 100% right. And, no matter how late he was or how terrible Rose’s performance was (which seems to be the other factor in the bottle barrage), that attack wasn’t even called for, much less earned. All the credit in the world should be given to Rose and the band (who tried valiantly to salvage the show despite the crowd’s - and Rose’s - best efforts) for carrying on in the face of a full-on revolt that could have gotten dangerously out-of-hand.
However, by this stage in the game, some of the blame also has to be laid at Rose’s feet. This isn’t 1991 anymore. Back then, Rose could get away with being that late because they were the biggest band in the world. That and the blame for the consistent tardiness could be laid at the feet of others.
Nineteen years later, Chinese Democracy - an album that took eighteen years to see the light of day - became modern music’s equivalent of the Hindenberg. The band would have lost its lustre if they were still together, but that decline is compounded by the fact that Axl is the only one left. He’s the only common factor in the band being late to perform almost two decades ago and today. He also seems to believe that Guns N’ Roses is still the biggest thing going today and that he can get away with having that same arrogant swagger.
Buying a day planner of some sort wouldn’t hurt the man one bit. Hell, Google Maps will tell you how long it takes to get somewhere! Technology has removed that excuse altogether! More than that, though, Axl Rose needs to sharpen his performance skills and realize that the Guns N’ Roses name is not only not what it once was, but that it needs to be salvaged after this set of European shows if it even has a chance of surviving.
When they were the biggest band on the planet, Guns N’ Roses could barely get booked anywhere because of the trouble they brought to the table. Times are vastly different, but yet Rose is still carrying on as if this is his heyday. If this band has a chance of playing future shows...if Guns N’ Roses even has a chance of surviving...Axl Rose is going to have to do a lot of work on turning around his reputation.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
When Performing Turns Dangerous
The following was my first piece for Blogcritics Music, just published today. You'll see a lot more of this sort of thing, as I am leaving 411 Music (amicably) to write for them as well as another outlet. But, enough of the jibber-jabber - let's get in to this...
With the recent blow-up over Guns N’ Roses at the Reading Festival in the UK, a pattern has definitely emerged. This now marks the third recent incident where an audience has had a severe issue (in some way shape or form) with a performer.
Strike one: Billy Corgan cut a gig at the Viper Room short due to heckling. Strike two: Tila Tequila is attacked (no, seriously) at the Gathering of the Juggalos. Strike three: Guns N’ Roses at Reading (and, to a lesser extent, Leeds).
Let’s do this in chronological order. Corgan, by all accounts played a great show before his incident. He’d played some newer stuff, sure, but he kept the stage banter to a minimum and brought quite a few of the hits that people (in all likelihood) came to hear. He did his part to entertain; it was when he wanted the audience to follow him in doing something different - in this case, breaking out a ukulele to do a new song. Not the most “rock and roll” thing to do, granted, but nothing too out there. The audience, who had been in to the show up to this point, turned like a pack of vipers (no pun intend--aw, who as I kidding?) and basically booed him off the stage.
Tila Tequila...there are quite a few circumstances surrounding what happened to her. You could argue that she trashed the Juggalo crowd before the festival (which, apparently, didn’t happen)...you could argue why was she booked for a crowd like that in the first place...you could argue that she was warned ahead of time that things were gonna get ugly...BUT, at the end of the day, she went out and gave it the ol’ college try. The music may have sucked out loud (and, trust me, it did), but...throwing rocks at her on stage and chasing her back to her trailer and do what they could to continue the assault? That’s flat-out uncalled for.
Guns N’ Roses showed up at Reading an hour late. Which, for Guns N’ Roses, is early, really. The problem seems to be there that the crowd was booing even the mention of their name throughout the day, let alone once they finally arrived. (It didn’t help that several other bands that day mocked them as the festival went on - including Blink 182 who, frankly, don’t have a whole lot of room to be casting stones.) Be that as it may, the problem didn’t seem to be so much with Guns N’ Roses as it was with Axl Rose. By all accounts, the band was pretty good, but Axl changed outfits five or six times, and then met the crowd’s hostility...well, the only way he knows how - by reflecting that hostility and throwing it back at them. Stories of whether or not their Reading set was sabotaged from jump (Rose certainly seems to think it was) could be argued, but the fact that the crowd was against him even before they showed up can’t.
Three different performers. Three different sets of circumstances. All having the same result - a performer giving their all is rejected by the crowd that came to see them (especially in Corgan’s case, since that wasn’t a festival appearance). The concert industry has taken a hit this season; between exorbitant ticket prices and a struggling economy, many artists have had to cancel shows or, in some cases like Christina Aguilera, entire tours.
However, the question has to be asked: what does a concert-going audience expect out of its performers? Have we been so built up by various media and PR stunts to think that what we’re supposed to see live is the greatest thing we’ll ever see, bar none? Or do those same PR stunts hurt a performer’s reputation that the audience is showing up simply to witness a train wreck - and getting so antsy at not seeing one that they’re willing to do their part to create one?
Looking at outlets like TMZ and Perez Hilton (why exactly is he famous again? Can somebody help me out with that one?), instances of scandal, shock, and general trashiness seem to rule the day. And outlets like that have become so popular (you’ve seen the TMZ TV show, right?), that it seems that that sort of “news reporting” is the norm. The damage it may be doing to those being reported about in such a fashion could have affected the collective consciousness enough that, now, it’s all the ticket-buying general public is interested in. Sad to see that going to a concert may not even be about the music anymore.
Bringing the ticket prices in to the equation, is it fair to expect the show of a lifetime (or possibly some sexual favors) after having to spend $200-300 on a single ticket? Having no idea what the price of a ticket was for any of the above, it may still be safe to say that, in the three instances above, ticket prices don’t seem to be a factor in expectations.
Were all three of these some sort of odd, cosmic coincidence that will blow over, letting the atmosphere of concerts return to normal? Or will these sort of instances continue with performers putting their reputations - or, in Tila’s case, lives - on the line to entertain a crowd that has no interest in being entertained? (which begs the question, why are they there in the first place?)
It’s a disturbing trend, to be sure. And one that, for the sake of the industry and those that ply their trade in it, is going to have to be monitored to see where we all go from here. It would be nice to go back to a time when concerts - especially festivals - were great to go to.
With the recent blow-up over Guns N’ Roses at the Reading Festival in the UK, a pattern has definitely emerged. This now marks the third recent incident where an audience has had a severe issue (in some way shape or form) with a performer.
Strike one: Billy Corgan cut a gig at the Viper Room short due to heckling. Strike two: Tila Tequila is attacked (no, seriously) at the Gathering of the Juggalos. Strike three: Guns N’ Roses at Reading (and, to a lesser extent, Leeds).
Let’s do this in chronological order. Corgan, by all accounts played a great show before his incident. He’d played some newer stuff, sure, but he kept the stage banter to a minimum and brought quite a few of the hits that people (in all likelihood) came to hear. He did his part to entertain; it was when he wanted the audience to follow him in doing something different - in this case, breaking out a ukulele to do a new song. Not the most “rock and roll” thing to do, granted, but nothing too out there. The audience, who had been in to the show up to this point, turned like a pack of vipers (no pun intend--aw, who as I kidding?) and basically booed him off the stage.
Tila Tequila...there are quite a few circumstances surrounding what happened to her. You could argue that she trashed the Juggalo crowd before the festival (which, apparently, didn’t happen)...you could argue why was she booked for a crowd like that in the first place...you could argue that she was warned ahead of time that things were gonna get ugly...BUT, at the end of the day, she went out and gave it the ol’ college try. The music may have sucked out loud (and, trust me, it did), but...throwing rocks at her on stage and chasing her back to her trailer and do what they could to continue the assault? That’s flat-out uncalled for.
Guns N’ Roses showed up at Reading an hour late. Which, for Guns N’ Roses, is early, really. The problem seems to be there that the crowd was booing even the mention of their name throughout the day, let alone once they finally arrived. (It didn’t help that several other bands that day mocked them as the festival went on - including Blink 182 who, frankly, don’t have a whole lot of room to be casting stones.) Be that as it may, the problem didn’t seem to be so much with Guns N’ Roses as it was with Axl Rose. By all accounts, the band was pretty good, but Axl changed outfits five or six times, and then met the crowd’s hostility...well, the only way he knows how - by reflecting that hostility and throwing it back at them. Stories of whether or not their Reading set was sabotaged from jump (Rose certainly seems to think it was) could be argued, but the fact that the crowd was against him even before they showed up can’t.
Three different performers. Three different sets of circumstances. All having the same result - a performer giving their all is rejected by the crowd that came to see them (especially in Corgan’s case, since that wasn’t a festival appearance). The concert industry has taken a hit this season; between exorbitant ticket prices and a struggling economy, many artists have had to cancel shows or, in some cases like Christina Aguilera, entire tours.
However, the question has to be asked: what does a concert-going audience expect out of its performers? Have we been so built up by various media and PR stunts to think that what we’re supposed to see live is the greatest thing we’ll ever see, bar none? Or do those same PR stunts hurt a performer’s reputation that the audience is showing up simply to witness a train wreck - and getting so antsy at not seeing one that they’re willing to do their part to create one?
Looking at outlets like TMZ and Perez Hilton (why exactly is he famous again? Can somebody help me out with that one?), instances of scandal, shock, and general trashiness seem to rule the day. And outlets like that have become so popular (you’ve seen the TMZ TV show, right?), that it seems that that sort of “news reporting” is the norm. The damage it may be doing to those being reported about in such a fashion could have affected the collective consciousness enough that, now, it’s all the ticket-buying general public is interested in. Sad to see that going to a concert may not even be about the music anymore.
Bringing the ticket prices in to the equation, is it fair to expect the show of a lifetime (or possibly some sexual favors) after having to spend $200-300 on a single ticket? Having no idea what the price of a ticket was for any of the above, it may still be safe to say that, in the three instances above, ticket prices don’t seem to be a factor in expectations.
Were all three of these some sort of odd, cosmic coincidence that will blow over, letting the atmosphere of concerts return to normal? Or will these sort of instances continue with performers putting their reputations - or, in Tila’s case, lives - on the line to entertain a crowd that has no interest in being entertained? (which begs the question, why are they there in the first place?)
It’s a disturbing trend, to be sure. And one that, for the sake of the industry and those that ply their trade in it, is going to have to be monitored to see where we all go from here. It would be nice to go back to a time when concerts - especially festivals - were great to go to.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Album Review: Tarja - "What Lies Beneath" - Orlando rock music | Examiner.com
A voice this dynamic almost needs no accompaniment, but some stronger foundation would help.
This almost makes me wish she would get back with Nightwish...
This almost makes me wish she would get back with Nightwish...
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Hollywood Will Eat Itself
...if it's not already gnawed off its own arm. Or a hand by now, at least.
I'm not going to go in to the spate over the last - what, decade? - of Hollywood remakes. My MySpace profile (remember that?) says how I feel about the movie industry:
I lost most interest in Hollywood when it came to my attention that all the film industry can do anymore is either:
a) Remake all the old, GOOD movies into tripe that can't hold a candle to it (Nightmare On Elm Street; The A-Team)
b) Make REALLY lousy movies out of TV shows (The Dukes Of Hazard, for example...and don't even get me started on Miami Vice)
c) Generally churn out unimaginative, uninspired crap that's only there to fill some studio executive's pockets.
That should cover it. And you would think that, after Nightmare and The A-Team both tanked this year, that Hollywood would get the bloody (no pun intended) hint. But, no. It's getting worse. Don't even get me started on the idea of Justin Bieber starring in a Back To The Future remake. Just...don't. I don't have the rest of this year to devote the time to the ranting, and that sort of thing isn't even what I'm talking about right now.
No...what's happening lately is Hollywood playing Human Catepillar. The new trend now? You ready for this one? Remaking TV shows that were based on a movie and already attempted once before.
It's already started. Last year, as a matter of fact. If you watch Parenthood on NBC, you've already seen one. It was a (pretty good) movie in 1989...and already a TV show in 1990-91. On NBC, no less! Because, apparently, they didn't learn the first time.
Unfortunately, they're not alone. Luc Besson's La Femme Nikita is being remade this fall on the CW as, simply, "Nikita". This is cannibalism beyond comprehension seeing as how there was a remake of the movie ("Point of No Return" starring Bridget Fonda), and - again - a TV show in 1998 with Peta Wilson on the USA Network. Grief, how many times are we gonna mine that one? Was the original SO BAD that we had to try it three more times? (Short answer: no.)
And that's not all! There's also word that there's another series in development based on...wait for it...The Net. You know, that now-awfully-dated 1995 movie with Sandra Bullock? When they were using, like 28.8 Kbps modems and maybe 200 Mb hard drives and stuff? Yeah. And it was already a TV series in 1998 on the USA Network, too. (Seeing a pattern here?)
I mean, what's next? Another Highlander series? Hey, why don't we give Clueless another run? And, really, isn't the world just waiting for that "AfterM*A*S*H*" redux?
Really, it's seeing stuff like this that this Blog has its name - and sub-title - in the first place.
I could rant and rave about ghow the public probably wants more original stories and ideas instead of this laziness, but I've said it. Several times. Until I'm so blue in the face I resemble a frickin' Smurf! It would feel like beating a dead horse if I did it again, but isn't the critter still kickin' if Hollywood can't learn by now?
Instead, I'll leave Hollywood with this message...next time you want to blame piracy or the economy or whatever pet peeve you normally point your finger at whenever the discussion of a declining industry comes up, take a look at this. I'm sure I'm NOT the only one feeling this way, if the fact that The A-Team bombed like a Guns N Roses festival performance in 2010* is any indication. You pay your writers to be creative. Make them earn it.
* - Yeah, I realize that was kind of an unfair shot, given the circumstances around this particular story. There'll be more said about that to come...
I'm not going to go in to the spate over the last - what, decade? - of Hollywood remakes. My MySpace profile (remember that?) says how I feel about the movie industry:
I lost most interest in Hollywood when it came to my attention that all the film industry can do anymore is either:
a) Remake all the old, GOOD movies into tripe that can't hold a candle to it (Nightmare On Elm Street; The A-Team)
b) Make REALLY lousy movies out of TV shows (The Dukes Of Hazard, for example...and don't even get me started on Miami Vice)
c) Generally churn out unimaginative, uninspired crap that's only there to fill some studio executive's pockets.
That should cover it. And you would think that, after Nightmare and The A-Team both tanked this year, that Hollywood would get the bloody (no pun intended) hint. But, no. It's getting worse. Don't even get me started on the idea of Justin Bieber starring in a Back To The Future remake. Just...don't. I don't have the rest of this year to devote the time to the ranting, and that sort of thing isn't even what I'm talking about right now.
No...what's happening lately is Hollywood playing Human Catepillar. The new trend now? You ready for this one? Remaking TV shows that were based on a movie and already attempted once before.
It's already started. Last year, as a matter of fact. If you watch Parenthood on NBC, you've already seen one. It was a (pretty good) movie in 1989...and already a TV show in 1990-91. On NBC, no less! Because, apparently, they didn't learn the first time.
Unfortunately, they're not alone. Luc Besson's La Femme Nikita is being remade this fall on the CW as, simply, "Nikita". This is cannibalism beyond comprehension seeing as how there was a remake of the movie ("Point of No Return" starring Bridget Fonda), and - again - a TV show in 1998 with Peta Wilson on the USA Network. Grief, how many times are we gonna mine that one? Was the original SO BAD that we had to try it three more times? (Short answer: no.)
And that's not all! There's also word that there's another series in development based on...wait for it...The Net. You know, that now-awfully-dated 1995 movie with Sandra Bullock? When they were using, like 28.8 Kbps modems and maybe 200 Mb hard drives and stuff? Yeah. And it was already a TV series in 1998 on the USA Network, too. (Seeing a pattern here?)
I mean, what's next? Another Highlander series? Hey, why don't we give Clueless another run? And, really, isn't the world just waiting for that "AfterM*A*S*H*" redux?
Really, it's seeing stuff like this that this Blog has its name - and sub-title - in the first place.
I could rant and rave about ghow the public probably wants more original stories and ideas instead of this laziness, but I've said it. Several times. Until I'm so blue in the face I resemble a frickin' Smurf! It would feel like beating a dead horse if I did it again, but isn't the critter still kickin' if Hollywood can't learn by now?
Instead, I'll leave Hollywood with this message...next time you want to blame piracy or the economy or whatever pet peeve you normally point your finger at whenever the discussion of a declining industry comes up, take a look at this. I'm sure I'm NOT the only one feeling this way, if the fact that The A-Team bombed like a Guns N Roses festival performance in 2010* is any indication. You pay your writers to be creative. Make them earn it.
* - Yeah, I realize that was kind of an unfair shot, given the circumstances around this particular story. There'll be more said about that to come...
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Fight The Power (Button)
The following is reprinted (with the introduction changed very slightly) from an earlier work. I'm not linking to it for reasons that are A) a little complicated to explain, and B) I don't feel like explaining them. I can tell you that this deserves to be heard on its own merits - which is why you're about to read it here.
And yes, I know I have some catching up to do. Gimme until...probably mid-week and I'll have more here.
There is a very important story taking place overseas that could have very serious implications for performers both abroad as well as here in the US. And hardly anyone seemed to notice it when it happened.
"Z" of Hipster Please / Radio Free Hipster fame revealed on Wired.com's GeekDad section that the UK High Court (with Nintendo's blessing) handed down a decision outlawing any hardware that enables people to circumvent Nintendo's piracy protection. This also includes the R4, a device used by many of the UK's Chiptunes artists.
Okay, so what the hell's a "chiptune"?
Well, if you noticed that not being able to use a piece of hardware associated with a Nintendo system stops it, you might have a good idea. If you still don't get it, I'll pull the definition from Wikipedia:
A chiptune, or chip music is music written in sound formats where many of the sound textures are synthesized or sequenced in real time by a computer or video game console sound chip, sometimes including sample-based synthesis and low bit sample playback.
To put it simpler: if you're familiar at all with the bands I Fight Dragons or HORSE The Band, they could be considered Chiptunes, though not all - hell, not even most Chiptunes artists sound quite like they do.
Okay, so these "chiptunes" people can't use Nintendo copying software overseas. A few geek musicians playing a niche genre have to start from scratch. Big deal.
Well, therein lies the problem. On the surface, no, it doesn't look like a big deal. Hell, even I wasn't aware of the implications this could have until I talked to my friend (and hopefully yours, too), Marc (with a C) clued me in.
As we were discussing the UK High Court decision, I asked him permission to record the conversation we were having to document it. He was agreeable because 1) this is a cause very close to his heart (being a musician and all), and 2) our conversation could explain what this could lead to better than I could by myself.
Without further adieu, that conversation went as follows:
MM: Explain, if you could, the decision that was handed down in the UK that bans – is it a specific hardware used to get around [Nintendo's] piracy protection or, what's – what exactly is the decision that they handed down?
Marc: The decision that has been handed down by the UK High Court shouldn't being misconstrued as a hard-and-fast law that says, "if you make Chiptunes, you are now an outlaw." That's not how it went. To circumvent piracy, the UK High Court handed down a decision that favored Nintento in outlawing the use of the R4 – a replicator that can used to basically copy games and to create your own ROMs. And gaming piracy is a problem. It would seem that, instead of outlawing BitTorrent, in the way that the files are actually traded, they decided to go with outlawing the hardware. Unfortunately, that hardware is what quite a few Chiptunes artists use in their performance. Let's say I Fight Dragons, the US group who uses the R4 for, I think, the DS, if they were to were to be booked for a show in the UK, [the R4] almost becomes contraband.
MM: So they've outlawed the hardware that enables the copying of games and making ROMs, but what they've also done in that is take away from a good sect of UK musicians the primary instrument they use to compose and perform their music.
Marc: Absolutely. It's no different then, if there was a Supreme Court ruling in the US all of the sudden that said you could still use guitars on stage, but you can't use Schecter brand guitars, then I would have to instantly become comfortable with another instrument instead of one that, frankly, I'm photographed with every time I'm on stage. I would have to change my act and perform with another instrument entirely. It might not seem like much to the average person, but once you get comfortable with a piece of gear, it becomes an extension of yourself on stage.
MM: Right. Now, seeing as how that happened in the UK, whom the US is allies with and, in many cases, what they tend to do as far as policy we normally follow suit with, what do you think that could mean for composers and performers of that same genre – or even outside of that – over here in the US?
Marc: The US, not 100% of the time but very often, has a habit of following in the UK's footsteps on big rulings. When you take in to account that every nation in the world is having a problem with piracy and is trying to come up with some loophole law to stop it and hasn't had much success in knocking BitTorrent down yet, there's a chance we could copy this. I don't know that we are trying to copy that ruling specifically but I wouldn't be surprised, considering our history. And if it's meant to circumvent piracy, what it could mean is that, first, we outlaw the hardware. They could basically say, "You, sir, can no longer use your instrument to create. Sound art is no longer your craft." The second one, if we're trying to stamp out piracy, this could mean that, technically, using samplers could be the next step. That would be huge in making Hip-Hop artists stop making their craft. The next step past that, in the US there are certain bars you can't go in to and play cover songs because they're not paying dues to ASCAP and BMI. The third step could lead to them saying, "Well, if you're not paying dues to ASCAP and BMI every time you perform, this has become such a problem that, now, you can't play someone else's material that you don't own the copyright to." It's a really dangerous decision that has only affected a few now, and Nintendo is apparently not terribly concerned with stomping creativity that does nothing but further peoples' love for Nintendo, frankly.
MM: Despite the fact that they've had relationships with people like Pixelh8 that have used this sort of thing and have actually partnered with in the past, now they've even cut that out.
Marc: Sure. If this is successful in the UK and it holds fast, it's not unheard of that the RIAA is going to catch wind of it and modify it to their satisfaction in the US and take it a whole lot further. Right now, what we need to be concerned about is that there are performers such as Pixelh8 and SuperPowerless who make an extension of sound art that the UK High Court has turned in to criminals because they wanted to make a song. This is unacceptable. I'm in no place to protest what the UK has done, as an American citizen, but I am in a place to say, "This is a dangerous precedent and we should have as many people as possible looking at it to make sure it never happens here." And also to extend an invitation and open arms to any UK Chiptunes artist that is affected by this ruling and say, "We're behind you and you can still do it here."
MM: Right, and this support comes from not only yourself, but a couple other people on WPRK, such as the Freaking Geek Show, as well.
Marc: Correct. Once I explained the implications to anyone that would listen to me for five minutes, initially I heard reactions like, "Why don't they just sample the tones and play them on the keyboard?" I think these people are missing the point - who is [the UK High Court] to tell someone how they can create? As far as I'm concerned, music is the last safe place you can make something and as long as someone's not getting hurt, I don't care how you make it. But to start taking away instruments is dangerous and, quite frankly, it makes Rush's 2112 prophetic, and we can't have that, can we?
MM: [Laughs] Right. it's like you said - they're taking away a means of creation. Some of the reactions have been, "why not just use a MIDI keyboard?" or what-have-you, but the point is they're still having to learn another instrument, even if it is a MIDI keyboard or a sampler. That kind of time and frustration at having to start over is, at the very least, going to slow their career down - if they don't get frustrated and dejected by the whole thing and just give up!
Marc: To my knowledge, all Pixelh8 does is music. This is his day job. And it almost seems as if Nintendo's lack of caring in how this might affect Pixelh8 is,in effect, Nintendo saying, "We don't care that we just robbed you of your livelihood." That might be the biggest crime of all.
If you're still worried about why Marc and I care so much about Chiptunes, then you've completely missed the entire point of what's happened here. This isn't so much about the genre as it is aboutmusical freedom.
Seriously, I can see the RIAA totally taking this and running for the end zone like their life depended on it. They've already pulled some pretty nefarious shit to stop piracy. They've sued children and old people who don't even know what "file-sharing" is and "settled out of court" for exorbitant amounts. There was the infamous Sony spyware issue with all of their CDs. Those are only a couple examples.
Consider this, as well: remember that third step about how some bars don't pay ASCAP and BMI dues, so particular music can't be played there? Several bars. Have already. Been sued. For that very reason.
So, exactly how far away are we again from seeing that very scenario happen in the US?
There is something you can do to learn more and help out. If you live in the UK, you can protest the decision outright and see what you can do to get it overturned. If you don't live over there, best suggestion I can make is visit Fight The Power! (It's even on Facebook, as well.) More info can be had there about supporting these artists who, without being very well-known, may well have become the harbingers for a dangerous time.
I know Marc and others are planning a show of on-air solidarity. As mentioned above, you can go to Marc's show page, The Real Congregation, or to the WPRK sites for more details as they become available.
And yes, I know I have some catching up to do. Gimme until...probably mid-week and I'll have more here.
There is a very important story taking place overseas that could have very serious implications for performers both abroad as well as here in the US. And hardly anyone seemed to notice it when it happened.
"Z" of Hipster Please / Radio Free Hipster fame revealed on Wired.com's GeekDad section that the UK High Court (with Nintendo's blessing) handed down a decision outlawing any hardware that enables people to circumvent Nintendo's piracy protection. This also includes the R4, a device used by many of the UK's Chiptunes artists.
Okay, so what the hell's a "chiptune"?
Well, if you noticed that not being able to use a piece of hardware associated with a Nintendo system stops it, you might have a good idea. If you still don't get it, I'll pull the definition from Wikipedia:
A chiptune, or chip music is music written in sound formats where many of the sound textures are synthesized or sequenced in real time by a computer or video game console sound chip, sometimes including sample-based synthesis and low bit sample playback.
To put it simpler: if you're familiar at all with the bands I Fight Dragons or HORSE The Band, they could be considered Chiptunes, though not all - hell, not even most Chiptunes artists sound quite like they do.
Okay, so these "chiptunes" people can't use Nintendo copying software overseas. A few geek musicians playing a niche genre have to start from scratch. Big deal.
Well, therein lies the problem. On the surface, no, it doesn't look like a big deal. Hell, even I wasn't aware of the implications this could have until I talked to my friend (and hopefully yours, too), Marc (with a C) clued me in.
As we were discussing the UK High Court decision, I asked him permission to record the conversation we were having to document it. He was agreeable because 1) this is a cause very close to his heart (being a musician and all), and 2) our conversation could explain what this could lead to better than I could by myself.
Without further adieu, that conversation went as follows:
MM: Explain, if you could, the decision that was handed down in the UK that bans – is it a specific hardware used to get around [Nintendo's] piracy protection or, what's – what exactly is the decision that they handed down?
Marc: The decision that has been handed down by the UK High Court shouldn't being misconstrued as a hard-and-fast law that says, "if you make Chiptunes, you are now an outlaw." That's not how it went. To circumvent piracy, the UK High Court handed down a decision that favored Nintento in outlawing the use of the R4 – a replicator that can used to basically copy games and to create your own ROMs. And gaming piracy is a problem. It would seem that, instead of outlawing BitTorrent, in the way that the files are actually traded, they decided to go with outlawing the hardware. Unfortunately, that hardware is what quite a few Chiptunes artists use in their performance. Let's say I Fight Dragons, the US group who uses the R4 for, I think, the DS, if they were to were to be booked for a show in the UK, [the R4] almost becomes contraband.
MM: So they've outlawed the hardware that enables the copying of games and making ROMs, but what they've also done in that is take away from a good sect of UK musicians the primary instrument they use to compose and perform their music.
Marc: Absolutely. It's no different then, if there was a Supreme Court ruling in the US all of the sudden that said you could still use guitars on stage, but you can't use Schecter brand guitars, then I would have to instantly become comfortable with another instrument instead of one that, frankly, I'm photographed with every time I'm on stage. I would have to change my act and perform with another instrument entirely. It might not seem like much to the average person, but once you get comfortable with a piece of gear, it becomes an extension of yourself on stage.
MM: Right. Now, seeing as how that happened in the UK, whom the US is allies with and, in many cases, what they tend to do as far as policy we normally follow suit with, what do you think that could mean for composers and performers of that same genre – or even outside of that – over here in the US?
Marc: The US, not 100% of the time but very often, has a habit of following in the UK's footsteps on big rulings. When you take in to account that every nation in the world is having a problem with piracy and is trying to come up with some loophole law to stop it and hasn't had much success in knocking BitTorrent down yet, there's a chance we could copy this. I don't know that we are trying to copy that ruling specifically but I wouldn't be surprised, considering our history. And if it's meant to circumvent piracy, what it could mean is that, first, we outlaw the hardware. They could basically say, "You, sir, can no longer use your instrument to create. Sound art is no longer your craft." The second one, if we're trying to stamp out piracy, this could mean that, technically, using samplers could be the next step. That would be huge in making Hip-Hop artists stop making their craft. The next step past that, in the US there are certain bars you can't go in to and play cover songs because they're not paying dues to ASCAP and BMI. The third step could lead to them saying, "Well, if you're not paying dues to ASCAP and BMI every time you perform, this has become such a problem that, now, you can't play someone else's material that you don't own the copyright to." It's a really dangerous decision that has only affected a few now, and Nintendo is apparently not terribly concerned with stomping creativity that does nothing but further peoples' love for Nintendo, frankly.
MM: Despite the fact that they've had relationships with people like Pixelh8 that have used this sort of thing and have actually partnered with in the past, now they've even cut that out.
Marc: Sure. If this is successful in the UK and it holds fast, it's not unheard of that the RIAA is going to catch wind of it and modify it to their satisfaction in the US and take it a whole lot further. Right now, what we need to be concerned about is that there are performers such as Pixelh8 and SuperPowerless who make an extension of sound art that the UK High Court has turned in to criminals because they wanted to make a song. This is unacceptable. I'm in no place to protest what the UK has done, as an American citizen, but I am in a place to say, "This is a dangerous precedent and we should have as many people as possible looking at it to make sure it never happens here." And also to extend an invitation and open arms to any UK Chiptunes artist that is affected by this ruling and say, "We're behind you and you can still do it here."
MM: Right, and this support comes from not only yourself, but a couple other people on WPRK, such as the Freaking Geek Show, as well.
Marc: Correct. Once I explained the implications to anyone that would listen to me for five minutes, initially I heard reactions like, "Why don't they just sample the tones and play them on the keyboard?" I think these people are missing the point - who is [the UK High Court] to tell someone how they can create? As far as I'm concerned, music is the last safe place you can make something and as long as someone's not getting hurt, I don't care how you make it. But to start taking away instruments is dangerous and, quite frankly, it makes Rush's 2112 prophetic, and we can't have that, can we?
MM: [Laughs] Right. it's like you said - they're taking away a means of creation. Some of the reactions have been, "why not just use a MIDI keyboard?" or what-have-you, but the point is they're still having to learn another instrument, even if it is a MIDI keyboard or a sampler. That kind of time and frustration at having to start over is, at the very least, going to slow their career down - if they don't get frustrated and dejected by the whole thing and just give up!
Marc: To my knowledge, all Pixelh8 does is music. This is his day job. And it almost seems as if Nintendo's lack of caring in how this might affect Pixelh8 is,in effect, Nintendo saying, "We don't care that we just robbed you of your livelihood." That might be the biggest crime of all.
If you're still worried about why Marc and I care so much about Chiptunes, then you've completely missed the entire point of what's happened here. This isn't so much about the genre as it is about
Seriously, I can see the RIAA totally taking this and running for the end zone like their life depended on it. They've already pulled some pretty nefarious shit to stop piracy. They've sued children and old people who don't even know what "file-sharing" is and "settled out of court" for exorbitant amounts. There was the infamous Sony spyware issue with all of their CDs. Those are only a couple examples.
Consider this, as well: remember that third step about how some bars don't pay ASCAP and BMI dues, so particular music can't be played there? Several bars. Have already. Been sued. For that very reason.
So, exactly how far away are we again from seeing that very scenario happen in the US?
There is something you can do to learn more and help out. If you live in the UK, you can protest the decision outright and see what you can do to get it overturned. If you don't live over there, best suggestion I can make is visit Fight The Power! (It's even on Facebook, as well.) More info can be had there about supporting these artists who, without being very well-known, may well have become the harbingers for a dangerous time.
I know Marc and others are planning a show of on-air solidarity. As mentioned above, you can go to Marc's show page, The Real Congregation, or to the WPRK sites for more details as they become available.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Mobile post 03
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Examining Slayer: An interview with Dave Lombardo
Slayer’s drummer Dave Lombardo talks about the current "American Carnage" tour, what’s to come on the second leg, the re-issue of three classic Slayer live DVDs, and the future of Slayer.
...and, as you'll probably tell by reading, getting him to talk about said subjects was not unlike pulling teeth...
...and, as you'll probably tell by reading, getting him to talk about said subjects was not unlike pulling teeth...
Sunday, August 1, 2010
411 Music - Sunday Morning Coming Down 08.01.10
New videos from Stone Sour and Armored Saint, old beefs wwith Pavement and Ozzy Osbourne, and the last word (for now) on MIA.
If for no other reason than the video for "Left Hook From Right Field". I'm more in love with that song than ever.
If for no other reason than the video for "Left Hook From Right Field". I'm more in love with that song than ever.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Hopefully, MIA Will Have No Problems Being A Career Upper-Mid-Carder.
The first sizeable chunk of this is reprinted from my own Sunday Morning Coming Down column from 411 (07.18.10). Beats the hell out of explaining this whole situation all over again...
And finally this week, we’ve got a treat for the rasslin’ fans in the house - a bonafide, old-school, elimination-style three-way-dance. Our main event is M.I.A. vs. the New York Times vs. Pitchfork.
The match started with a New York Times piece on MIA that (deliberately, in all probability, since the Times had to print a retraction, but I’m getting ahead of myself) made her out to be a hypocrite. In particular, people latched on to this set of quotes:
“I wasn’t trying to be like Bono,” Maya told me. “He’s not from Africa — I’m from there. I’m tired of pop stars who say, ‘Give peace a chance.’ I’d rather say, ‘Give war a chance.’ The whole point of going to the Grammys was to say, ‘Hey, 50,000 people are gonna die next month, and here’s your opportunity to help.’ And no one did.”
For one, this is where the retraction came in. Appended to the end of the piece now is:
The cover article in The Times Magazine on Sunday profiled the singer and political activist M.I.A. While discussing her efforts to draw attention to the civil war in her home country, Sri Lanka, she was quoted as saying: “I wasn’t trying to be like Bono. He’s not from Africa — I’m from there. I’m tired of pop stars who say, ‘Give peace a chance.’ I’d rather say, ‘Give war a chance.’ The whole point of going to the Grammys was to say, ‘Hey, 50,000 people are gonna die next month, and here’s your opportunity to help.’ And no one did.”
While M.I.A. did make those remarks, she did not make the entire statement at the same point in the interview, or in the order in which it was presented.
The part that begins, “The whole point of going to the Grammys,” up to the end of the quotation, actually came first. The part that begins, “I wasn’t trying to be like Bono,” and ends, “Give war a chance,” came later in the same interview. The article should have made clear that the two quotations came from different parts of the interview.
A retraction is normally relegated to the back pages and therefore mostly overlooked nowadays. It gets too much in the way of a story the writer wants to tell instead of the actual truth and doesn’t sell as well as the rest of the sensationalism does. Nonetheless, a retraction - basically a journalistic admission of guilt - was not only printed but placed prominently at the end of the story online so it can be clearly seen. It’s fun watching a “reputable” (*cough*) source having to admit they fucked up.
Secondly, a quote that tells a much clearer picture was virtually ignored:
“We went to the Grammys, we had the baby and we bought the house,” Maya said as she studied the menu, deciding on a glass of wine and French fries. “A month later, all this stuff was happening in Sri Lanka” — the Tamil insurgency was being defeated amid reports of thousands of civilian casualties — “and I started speaking up against it. And then, within a month, I found out my house was being bugged, my phones were being tapped and my e-mails were being hacked into. I was getting death threats, like ‘hope your baby dies.’ The biggest Sinhalese community is in Santa Monica, people who are sworn enemies of the Tamils, which is me.” She paused. “I live around the corner from Beverly Hills, and I feel semiprotected by Ben and, if anything happens to me, then Ben’s family will not take it. Jimmy Iovine, who runs Interscope, my record company, said, ‘Pick your battles carefully — don’t put your life at risk,’ but at the end of the day, I don’t see how you can shut up and just enjoy success when other people who don’t have the fame or the luxury to rent security guards are suffering. What the hell do they do? They just die.”
This is much more important because, for those paying attention, this just torpedoed Lynn Hirschberg’s (or the Times’s as a whole) entire agenda. The point was to show MIA as portraying herself as a downtrodden speaker who’s life is so rough, yet she lives in a posh California home with her baby and the son of the CEO of her label. See? She’s living the high life! What right does she have to speak about stuff she known nothing about just to be controversial?
Well, for one, she’s speaking about her background and trying to bring attention to those that are suffering where she comes from. Two, she admitted her lifestyle, but still uses her public platform to do some good. I wasn’t aware it was such a sin in this country to use your higher status and wealth to attempt to help others who are unable to help themselves but are still in dire need of it.
MIA responds to this attack by posting Hirschberg’s phone number on Twitter (ha!) and imploring people to “call me [MIA] and let’s talk about the story ;)”. Hirschberg called the move “fairly unethical...infuriating...and not surprising.” And that seemed to be the end of it - until Pitchfork got involved.
At first, Pitchfork took the side of the industry darling they feel they helped create (echoing some of what I thought upon reading the original piece)...
...a correction is a correction, and it does make you wonder if Hirschberg's desire for a strong angle got in the way of her piece's veracity.
(Ulterior crackpot theory I just thought of: Perhaps New York Times columnist and notorious peacenik Bono is behind this entire charade!)
Even more damning was Hirschberg's recent statement to The New York Observer about the part of the piece that depicted M.I.A. as a truffle-fry-eating hypocrite. The writer said, "I don't think the French fries illustrate that much about her character." But, as The Village Voice's Zach Baron tactfully points out, "This statement, of course, is entirely disingenuous-- details like the above are included in profiles precisely because they are assumed to be illuminating, character-wise."
Pitchfork called out Hirschberg on attempting to ruin MIA (which, you notice, she never did answer for) and eliminated her from the match (to take the job of Editor In Chief at W magazine, natch). Once Hirschberg bailed out of the ring, Pitchfork made all niecey-nice with MIA - but the foreshadowing was there...
Will she be able to break free of such online censorship or perish beneath the weight of a mass media conspiracy (supposedly) hell bent on taking her down?! Tune in next time!
That sounded a little...snide. As for some “mass media conspiracy (supposedly) hell bent on taking her down,” maybe they can shed some light on that because they totally fed the idea with a sudden charishot right to MIA’s skull in the form of scathing review of ”Maya” (because I refuse to type all those symbols and stuff), which came out this past Tuesday.
A 4.4. That was their score. Seemed kind of odd for someone whose last album they gave an 8.9.
Okay, time out. Let’s look at these a second. From their review of Kala:
If anything, Kala finds her puffing out her chest and asserting herself more strenuously than ever, half-baked agit-prop and all. When she boasts on the stomping, Bollywood-sampling opener "Bamboo Banga" that she's "coming back with power/ Power," you get the sense that by "power" she means "courage of conviction." Regardless of how you square with her politics, her willingness to continue the muckracking is admirable, if not dimension-adding. Don't forget, she's rubbing elbows with the likes of Interscope and Timbaland now; for all the choices she might have made and the audiences she might have aimed at, the fresh-sounding, adventurous, and not-exactly-accessible Kala is the kind of record that obviously demanded a defined personal vision.
And now, from their review of ”Maya”:
It's hard to tell whether /\/\/\Y/\ is half-assed or half-baked. There are certainly a number of good ideas in the mix here, but the execution is lacking. Tracks like "Story to Be Told", "Lovealot", and "Teqkilla" come across like mildly promising demos ready to be edited into sleeker, stronger compositions. Lead single "XXXO" sounds unfinished, as if everyone involved figured they may as well wait around for someone else to make a better remix. Most of the songs are built out of digital clangs and electronic noise
A little later on, same review...
It's not exactly a surprise that M.I.A. would opt to create such an off-putting and anti-pop album at this point in her career. She may be reaching for an interesting and provocative style, but her motives seem defensive in nature-- reasserting her artsy, agit-prop cred not long after breaking through to the mainstream and becoming engaged to the heir of the Bronfman liquor fortune. On a superficial level, /\/\/\Y/\ is a challenge, but it's really more of a retreat. She's shrinking from her chance to engage with a mainstream audience, and refusing to live up to her potential as a pop artist.
...so, what am I to take from this? That if they take the same sentiment they praised her for in one review and break it up in to two parts using slightly different language, then they’re suddenly saying the opposite? Like, she kinda sounds the same as her last album, but they loved her then, so it was okay? And alluva sudden they don’t, so now that exact same sound and approach is suddenly no longer cool and she should be raked over the coals for it?
Something stinks, here. And I’m pretty sure I have an idea of what that smell is - Hirschberg and Pitc--excuse me, Bitchfork being full of their own shit.
Hirschberg has a history of this sort of thing (see: Love, Courtney) already. Hell, both of them do, really - Bitchfork is well-known for (wanting to be) tastemakers. What they say goes, and you’re a Bolshevik weenie if you don’t agree with them.
Their hatchet job even got a mention in Billboard. Good for them, but it’s Billboard who blows a pretty big hole in their idea of being the hipster place for music, as well as Heischberg’s ill-executed “takedown”.
The problem with both of them looking to affect MIA’s career is that it would have to be assumed that, in order to accomplish that, sales of ”Maya” would have to drop like a brick. That’s what determines popularity - the more people buy, the bigger you are. That’s how the game works.
While MIA’s last album, Kala has been certified Gold by the RIAA having sold over half a million units, it took three after its release for that to happen. (“Paper Planes” didn’t take off for well over a year after it came out, and it wasn’t the intended single even when it did.) In fact, Kala’s first week sales were 39,000. According to Billboard, ”Maya” is projected to open with...about 25,000. Not a very big difference, there. Doesn’t look like the rest of the planet hates MIA as much as Bitchfork and Heischberg do, because the rest of the planet cares about her as much as they used to - not very.
I’m not a big MIA fan; that wasn’t the point of this, to come to her defense. I don’t hate her, either, really; I just don’t see what the point of this two-pronged takedown was. The problem I have here is both Heischberg and Bitchfork getting themselves over and thinking they’re a lot more important than they actually are. People desperately trying to use the media to get themselves over is a big pet peeve; that’s why I can’t stand that douchelord Perez Hilton. I’m merely here, to paraphrase Emergency Pizza Party, “to call out their bullshit like I was Penn & Teller.”
I’m wondering if it was even necessary, because their efforts look like they were for naught. All in all, their combined actions seemed, at the end of the day, to do very little for her career one way or the other. Looks like Bitchfork’s supposed reputation of ruining careers with a bad review is a little overblown. And Heischberg simply decided to be a bitch on her way to a career change. Neither, it looks like, accomplished what they wanted to do, and I’m glad for that.
The winner of the match, after last eliminating Bitchfork: MIA.
MIA has stayed pretty much on a rampage (because of all this? If it is, I don't blame her a damn bit). Next target, courtesy of Time Out Magazine (although I couldn't actually find the article...) by way of 411 Music (...but Mitch is normally solid with his sources, so I'll go with what I got), was Lady GaGa:
M.I.A.: ...Oprah seemed like she was giving me the cold shoulder.
Time Out: What do you mean?
M.I.A.: She was with Iman [Bowie]. Iman was always dancing with me, hugging and kissing me, but Oprah seemed really pissed off with me. Also she made this huge speech at the ball praising Lady Gaga and about how she is helping Americans to be the best of themselves. There's millions of other Americans who represent that for me. Is [it] about numbers? About how much you're selling? Is it truly about the journey? Because [Lady Gaga's] journey isn't that difficult: to go from the fucking Upper East Side to a fucking performing arts school and on to a stage at the museum of fucking wherever. That journey's about four miles.
...deeeeeamn. Bonus points for hilarity aside, she raises a point. In her own way, I guess.
You see, I'm no GaGa fan, but I understand and get it. And I have nothing against the fact that, debates about actual talent aside, she's more than willing and able to play the game of media manipulation to the point that she's about the fill the void of next big Pop Superstar. The media's gonna let her do it and planet Earth is gonna stand aside and watch while they're all being played.
MIA, meanwhile, is doing the same, but in another direction entirely. She's looking more and more like this generation's Chuck D. The media is there, for her, to get her beliefs and her character over, but not to play the game of stardom.
At the end of the day, I think MIA will be the more respected but less successful of the two. Lady GaGa has no problem whoring herself out in the name of fame, but MIA's after the integrity vote. The planet is too full of supercilious sheep with short attention spans to care about things like character and integrity. Hell, they think all you need for "character" is a weird outfit once a week.
And THAT is why Lady GaGa will ultimately win the Pop Stardom World Heavyweight Championship, while MIA, though the more respected (and respectable) of the two, will have to settle for the Intercontinental Title.
The match started with a New York Times piece on MIA that (deliberately, in all probability, since the Times had to print a retraction, but I’m getting ahead of myself) made her out to be a hypocrite. In particular, people latched on to this set of quotes:
“I wasn’t trying to be like Bono,” Maya told me. “He’s not from Africa — I’m from there. I’m tired of pop stars who say, ‘Give peace a chance.’ I’d rather say, ‘Give war a chance.’ The whole point of going to the Grammys was to say, ‘Hey, 50,000 people are gonna die next month, and here’s your opportunity to help.’ And no one did.”
For one, this is where the retraction came in. Appended to the end of the piece now is:
The cover article in The Times Magazine on Sunday profiled the singer and political activist M.I.A. While discussing her efforts to draw attention to the civil war in her home country, Sri Lanka, she was quoted as saying: “I wasn’t trying to be like Bono. He’s not from Africa — I’m from there. I’m tired of pop stars who say, ‘Give peace a chance.’ I’d rather say, ‘Give war a chance.’ The whole point of going to the Grammys was to say, ‘Hey, 50,000 people are gonna die next month, and here’s your opportunity to help.’ And no one did.”
While M.I.A. did make those remarks, she did not make the entire statement at the same point in the interview, or in the order in which it was presented.
The part that begins, “The whole point of going to the Grammys,” up to the end of the quotation, actually came first. The part that begins, “I wasn’t trying to be like Bono,” and ends, “Give war a chance,” came later in the same interview. The article should have made clear that the two quotations came from different parts of the interview.
A retraction is normally relegated to the back pages and therefore mostly overlooked nowadays. It gets too much in the way of a story the writer wants to tell instead of the actual truth and doesn’t sell as well as the rest of the sensationalism does. Nonetheless, a retraction - basically a journalistic admission of guilt - was not only printed but placed prominently at the end of the story online so it can be clearly seen. It’s fun watching a “reputable” (*cough*) source having to admit they fucked up.
Secondly, a quote that tells a much clearer picture was virtually ignored:
“We went to the Grammys, we had the baby and we bought the house,” Maya said as she studied the menu, deciding on a glass of wine and French fries. “A month later, all this stuff was happening in Sri Lanka” — the Tamil insurgency was being defeated amid reports of thousands of civilian casualties — “and I started speaking up against it. And then, within a month, I found out my house was being bugged, my phones were being tapped and my e-mails were being hacked into. I was getting death threats, like ‘hope your baby dies.’ The biggest Sinhalese community is in Santa Monica, people who are sworn enemies of the Tamils, which is me.” She paused. “I live around the corner from Beverly Hills, and I feel semiprotected by Ben and, if anything happens to me, then Ben’s family will not take it. Jimmy Iovine, who runs Interscope, my record company, said, ‘Pick your battles carefully — don’t put your life at risk,’ but at the end of the day, I don’t see how you can shut up and just enjoy success when other people who don’t have the fame or the luxury to rent security guards are suffering. What the hell do they do? They just die.”
This is much more important because, for those paying attention, this just torpedoed Lynn Hirschberg’s (or the Times’s as a whole) entire agenda. The point was to show MIA as portraying herself as a downtrodden speaker who’s life is so rough, yet she lives in a posh California home with her baby and the son of the CEO of her label. See? She’s living the high life! What right does she have to speak about stuff she known nothing about just to be controversial?
Well, for one, she’s speaking about her background and trying to bring attention to those that are suffering where she comes from. Two, she admitted her lifestyle, but still uses her public platform to do some good. I wasn’t aware it was such a sin in this country to use your higher status and wealth to attempt to help others who are unable to help themselves but are still in dire need of it.
MIA responds to this attack by posting Hirschberg’s phone number on Twitter (ha!) and imploring people to “call me [MIA] and let’s talk about the story ;)”. Hirschberg called the move “fairly unethical...infuriating...and not surprising.” And that seemed to be the end of it - until Pitchfork got involved.
At first, Pitchfork took the side of the industry darling they feel they helped create (echoing some of what I thought upon reading the original piece)...
...a correction is a correction, and it does make you wonder if Hirschberg's desire for a strong angle got in the way of her piece's veracity.
(Ulterior crackpot theory I just thought of: Perhaps New York Times columnist and notorious peacenik Bono is behind this entire charade!)
Even more damning was Hirschberg's recent statement to The New York Observer about the part of the piece that depicted M.I.A. as a truffle-fry-eating hypocrite. The writer said, "I don't think the French fries illustrate that much about her character." But, as The Village Voice's Zach Baron tactfully points out, "This statement, of course, is entirely disingenuous-- details like the above are included in profiles precisely because they are assumed to be illuminating, character-wise."
Pitchfork called out Hirschberg on attempting to ruin MIA (which, you notice, she never did answer for) and eliminated her from the match (to take the job of Editor In Chief at W magazine, natch). Once Hirschberg bailed out of the ring, Pitchfork made all niecey-nice with MIA - but the foreshadowing was there...
Will she be able to break free of such online censorship or perish beneath the weight of a mass media conspiracy (supposedly) hell bent on taking her down?! Tune in next time!
That sounded a little...snide. As for some “mass media conspiracy (supposedly) hell bent on taking her down,” maybe they can shed some light on that because they totally fed the idea with a sudden charishot right to MIA’s skull in the form of scathing review of ”Maya” (because I refuse to type all those symbols and stuff), which came out this past Tuesday.
A 4.4. That was their score. Seemed kind of odd for someone whose last album they gave an 8.9.
Okay, time out. Let’s look at these a second. From their review of Kala:
If anything, Kala finds her puffing out her chest and asserting herself more strenuously than ever, half-baked agit-prop and all. When she boasts on the stomping, Bollywood-sampling opener "Bamboo Banga" that she's "coming back with power/ Power," you get the sense that by "power" she means "courage of conviction." Regardless of how you square with her politics, her willingness to continue the muckracking is admirable, if not dimension-adding. Don't forget, she's rubbing elbows with the likes of Interscope and Timbaland now; for all the choices she might have made and the audiences she might have aimed at, the fresh-sounding, adventurous, and not-exactly-accessible Kala is the kind of record that obviously demanded a defined personal vision.
And now, from their review of ”Maya”:
It's hard to tell whether /\/\/\Y/\ is half-assed or half-baked. There are certainly a number of good ideas in the mix here, but the execution is lacking. Tracks like "Story to Be Told", "Lovealot", and "Teqkilla" come across like mildly promising demos ready to be edited into sleeker, stronger compositions. Lead single "XXXO" sounds unfinished, as if everyone involved figured they may as well wait around for someone else to make a better remix. Most of the songs are built out of digital clangs and electronic noise
A little later on, same review...
It's not exactly a surprise that M.I.A. would opt to create such an off-putting and anti-pop album at this point in her career. She may be reaching for an interesting and provocative style, but her motives seem defensive in nature-- reasserting her artsy, agit-prop cred not long after breaking through to the mainstream and becoming engaged to the heir of the Bronfman liquor fortune. On a superficial level, /\/\/\Y/\ is a challenge, but it's really more of a retreat. She's shrinking from her chance to engage with a mainstream audience, and refusing to live up to her potential as a pop artist.
...so, what am I to take from this? That if they take the same sentiment they praised her for in one review and break it up in to two parts using slightly different language, then they’re suddenly saying the opposite? Like, she kinda sounds the same as her last album, but they loved her then, so it was okay? And alluva sudden they don’t, so now that exact same sound and approach is suddenly no longer cool and she should be raked over the coals for it?
Something stinks, here. And I’m pretty sure I have an idea of what that smell is - Hirschberg and Pitc--excuse me, Bitchfork being full of their own shit.
Hirschberg has a history of this sort of thing (see: Love, Courtney) already. Hell, both of them do, really - Bitchfork is well-known for (wanting to be) tastemakers. What they say goes, and you’re a Bolshevik weenie if you don’t agree with them.
Their hatchet job even got a mention in Billboard. Good for them, but it’s Billboard who blows a pretty big hole in their idea of being the hipster place for music, as well as Heischberg’s ill-executed “takedown”.
The problem with both of them looking to affect MIA’s career is that it would have to be assumed that, in order to accomplish that, sales of ”Maya” would have to drop like a brick. That’s what determines popularity - the more people buy, the bigger you are. That’s how the game works.
While MIA’s last album, Kala has been certified Gold by the RIAA having sold over half a million units, it took three after its release for that to happen. (“Paper Planes” didn’t take off for well over a year after it came out, and it wasn’t the intended single even when it did.) In fact, Kala’s first week sales were 39,000. According to Billboard, ”Maya” is projected to open with...about 25,000. Not a very big difference, there. Doesn’t look like the rest of the planet hates MIA as much as Bitchfork and Heischberg do, because the rest of the planet cares about her as much as they used to - not very.
I’m not a big MIA fan; that wasn’t the point of this, to come to her defense. I don’t hate her, either, really; I just don’t see what the point of this two-pronged takedown was. The problem I have here is both Heischberg and Bitchfork getting themselves over and thinking they’re a lot more important than they actually are. People desperately trying to use the media to get themselves over is a big pet peeve; that’s why I can’t stand that douchelord Perez Hilton. I’m merely here, to paraphrase Emergency Pizza Party, “to call out their bullshit like I was Penn & Teller.”
I’m wondering if it was even necessary, because their efforts look like they were for naught. All in all, their combined actions seemed, at the end of the day, to do very little for her career one way or the other. Looks like Bitchfork’s supposed reputation of ruining careers with a bad review is a little overblown. And Heischberg simply decided to be a bitch on her way to a career change. Neither, it looks like, accomplished what they wanted to do, and I’m glad for that.
The winner of the match, after last eliminating Bitchfork: MIA.
MIA has stayed pretty much on a rampage (because of all this? If it is, I don't blame her a damn bit). Next target, courtesy of Time Out Magazine (although I couldn't actually find the article...) by way of 411 Music (...but Mitch is normally solid with his sources, so I'll go with what I got), was Lady GaGa:
M.I.A.: ...Oprah seemed like she was giving me the cold shoulder.
Time Out: What do you mean?
M.I.A.: She was with Iman [Bowie]. Iman was always dancing with me, hugging and kissing me, but Oprah seemed really pissed off with me. Also she made this huge speech at the ball praising Lady Gaga and about how she is helping Americans to be the best of themselves. There's millions of other Americans who represent that for me. Is [it] about numbers? About how much you're selling? Is it truly about the journey? Because [Lady Gaga's] journey isn't that difficult: to go from the fucking Upper East Side to a fucking performing arts school and on to a stage at the museum of fucking wherever. That journey's about four miles.
...deeeeeamn. Bonus points for hilarity aside, she raises a point. In her own way, I guess.
You see, I'm no GaGa fan, but I understand and get it. And I have nothing against the fact that, debates about actual talent aside, she's more than willing and able to play the game of media manipulation to the point that she's about the fill the void of next big Pop Superstar. The media's gonna let her do it and planet Earth is gonna stand aside and watch while they're all being played.
MIA, meanwhile, is doing the same, but in another direction entirely. She's looking more and more like this generation's Chuck D. The media is there, for her, to get her beliefs and her character over, but not to play the game of stardom.
At the end of the day, I think MIA will be the more respected but less successful of the two. Lady GaGa has no problem whoring herself out in the name of fame, but MIA's after the integrity vote. The planet is too full of supercilious sheep with short attention spans to care about things like character and integrity. Hell, they think all you need for "character" is a weird outfit once a week.
And THAT is why Lady GaGa will ultimately win the Pop Stardom World Heavyweight Championship, while MIA, though the more respected (and respectable) of the two, will have to settle for the Intercontinental Title.
Show Review: Weird Al at Hard Rock Live - 07.21.10
The Father of Nerd Music and Pop-Culture Satirist Extradordinaire still has what it takes on stage.
...and boy, does he ever. This was easily one of the most fun shows I can ever remember going to.
Incidentally, there's an MIA update hitting here soon as well as the stuff I've posted about Nerdapalooza. All sorts of videos and stuff like that. Stay tuned.
...and boy, does he ever. This was easily one of the most fun shows I can ever remember going to.
Incidentally, there's an MIA update hitting here soon as well as the stuff I've posted about Nerdapalooza. All sorts of videos and stuff like that. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Pink Floyd's Waters, Gilmour to reunite again
Roger Waters says that he and David Gilmour WILL reunite at least one more time.
Read the last paragraph of Waters' statement, and you may be reading history.
Read the last paragraph of Waters' statement, and you may be reading history.
The Tide Is Turning?
Hot damn!
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has declared the FCC's rules on indecency "unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here", thereby violating the First Amendment.
Let me translate for you: Next time Janet Jackson flops out a boob or some singer gets a little too excited at an awards show and blurts out a curse word, or two, it won't potentially cost the offending station millions of dollars in fines and fees. Even better, should a DJ for a small college radio station happen to blurt one of the "seven dirty words" on the air, the station won't have to worry about shutting its doors because the fines will drive it to bankruptcy.
Now, I wouldn't expect a free-for-all on prime time television with all your favorite sitcom and crime drama characters swearing like sailors. But what this means is that, if they so chose to do just that, an oppressive government faction can no longer drain the network/station financially in the name of, deciding for the all of us, what's "decent".
One of our major freedoms taken away from us during the Bush Administration has been restored. It gives me a great feeling to know that artists of all sorts - singers, musicians, actors, writers, you name it - can now actually express themselves without fear of reprisal.
To hell with Mel Gibson and how all the tapes of what he said in the privacy of his own home are under public scrutiny (ironic that that fact is totally lost in the story, no?)...this, to me, is MUCH more important than celebrity gossip. The airwaves are actually free again.
I used to think the world was flat
Rarely threw my hat into the crowd
I felt I had used up my quota of yearning
Used to look in on the children at night
In the glow of their Donald Duck light
And frighten myself with the thought of my little ones burning
But, oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
The tide is turning
Satellite buzzing through the endless night
Exclusive to moonshots and world title fights
Jesus Christ, imagine what it must be earning
Who is the strongest
Who is the best
Who holds the aces
The East
Or the West
This is the crap our children are learning
But oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
The tide is turning
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
Now the satellite's confused
'Cause on Saturday night
The airwaves were full of compassion and light
And his silicon heart
Warmed to the sight of a billion candles burning
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
I'm not saying that the battle is won
But on Saturday night all those kids in the sun
Wrested technology's sword from the hand of the war lords
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
Indeed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has declared the FCC's rules on indecency "unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here", thereby violating the First Amendment.
Let me translate for you: Next time Janet Jackson flops out a boob or some singer gets a little too excited at an awards show and blurts out a curse word, or two, it won't potentially cost the offending station millions of dollars in fines and fees. Even better, should a DJ for a small college radio station happen to blurt one of the "seven dirty words" on the air, the station won't have to worry about shutting its doors because the fines will drive it to bankruptcy.
Now, I wouldn't expect a free-for-all on prime time television with all your favorite sitcom and crime drama characters swearing like sailors. But what this means is that, if they so chose to do just that, an oppressive government faction can no longer drain the network/station financially in the name of, deciding for the all of us, what's "decent".
One of our major freedoms taken away from us during the Bush Administration has been restored. It gives me a great feeling to know that artists of all sorts - singers, musicians, actors, writers, you name it - can now actually express themselves without fear of reprisal.
To hell with Mel Gibson and how all the tapes of what he said in the privacy of his own home are under public scrutiny (ironic that that fact is totally lost in the story, no?)...this, to me, is MUCH more important than celebrity gossip. The airwaves are actually free again.
I used to think the world was flat
Rarely threw my hat into the crowd
I felt I had used up my quota of yearning
Used to look in on the children at night
In the glow of their Donald Duck light
And frighten myself with the thought of my little ones burning
But, oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
The tide is turning
Satellite buzzing through the endless night
Exclusive to moonshots and world title fights
Jesus Christ, imagine what it must be earning
Who is the strongest
Who is the best
Who holds the aces
The East
Or the West
This is the crap our children are learning
But oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
The tide is turning
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
Now the satellite's confused
'Cause on Saturday night
The airwaves were full of compassion and light
And his silicon heart
Warmed to the sight of a billion candles burning
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
I'm not saying that the battle is won
But on Saturday night all those kids in the sun
Wrested technology's sword from the hand of the war lords
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
Indeed.
Marc with a C returns to Nerdapalooza
Orlando favorite (as officially voted on by the readers of Orlando Weekly) Marc with a C talks about going back to Nerdapalooza and much more...
BIG congratulations to Marc on getting the "Best Indie Act" nod from the readers of Orlando Weekly. Very cool. I really cannot WAIT to hit my first Nerdapalooza this weekend...
BIG congratulations to Marc on getting the "Best Indie Act" nod from the readers of Orlando Weekly. Very cool. I really cannot WAIT to hit my first Nerdapalooza this weekend...
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
[VIDEO] U2 announces rescheduled return to Florida
U2 announces via YouTube that the band will be back on the road next year.
I think it's documented well enough that I'm not the biggest U2 fan in the world. That having been said, I'm glad Bono's recovering enough to pull this off and kudos to them for rescheduling all 16 dates to make those who spent the money to see them happy by still giving the chance to do so.
I think it's documented well enough that I'm not the biggest U2 fan in the world. That having been said, I'm glad Bono's recovering enough to pull this off and kudos to them for rescheduling all 16 dates to make those who spent the money to see them happy by still giving the chance to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)