Be Sharp! Be Brilliant!
Well, today is the day of the Christian's Rapture. Please beware of cars driving down the street with no one behind the wheel. According to reports, this could be like every other car on the freeway. Maybe stay home? I don't know. I might take my bike out on the freeway, but drive as I always do, quite defensively.
Some nutbar named Harold Camping, who back in 1994 said this was going to happen then, but when it didn't said, "Oh, wait, I meant 2011. Yes, that's what I meant."
So now, Harold is saying, that today is the end, the glorious end for those good Christians, and in his view, not all Christians are equal.
I can only say this, Be Sharp! Be Brilliant! Believe what is reasonable, not just plain stupid. Even Christians are against Mr. Nutbar, that is to say, Harold. First of all I have to say, I don't think I would follow someone named Harold. God wants a guy named Harold to be his spokesperson? Really?
Do you have any idea how many times someone has said the end is near, or today? I can give you a general, or more specific, idea. Check this list out. I'm not going to even try to list it here as it is a HUGE list.
All I can say is if today is the end for whoever Camping thinks are "good Christians", well, there will be a lot more room, food, and booze for the rest of us. And I'm moving into a much nicer house. And taking over the next really nice Ferrari Testarossa that I come upon. And I'm upgrading my bike.
The blog of Filmmaker and Writer JZ Murdock—exploring horror, sci-fi, philosophy, psychology, and the strange depths of our human experience. 'What we think, we become.' The Buddha
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Ever watch TV? Don't just get pissed. Fight back!
Why does Media Abuse its Consumers, their Life Blood?
Before I get started, I am not going to pay any attention at all to the argument that advertising pays the bills. That has become a kind of reverse moot point. And no, I won't explain that now. That is a fog that business people put up to blur what is actually happening; an a prioi, if you will, so we cannot at all discuss what the problem is, the dissatisfaction that is rampant. So for a moment, let's just look at the other side at the audiences who are being abused by these principles, the studios and those business people who are trying to make do, but pushing the limits to the point of poor taste and actually losing audiences.
I heard an article this past week that they are cancelling the show, "The Event." The article said that viewers won't even get to find out what the "Event", was.
Excuse me?
TV and cable are lucky I'm not an Attorney. Especially, a rich one. Because I would start a series of class action lawsuits against the TV and Cable industry.
Why? Oh, let me count the ways. Ever since I was a child I've been up against the TV media industry. When they first put on "Batman" with Adam West, my friends and I were upset. At first we thought, Awesome, a comic book hero on TV. We have finally been heard. But alas, it turned into a spoof of Batman, "The Dark Knight" almost immediately and only got worse from there. Yes, adults thought it was a hoot. It became a "thing" in Hollywood to get a cameo on the show. Yes, in hindsight that was cool, but I wasn't an adult back then and we thought they put on Batman, for us.
My friends and I sent the studio letters begging them to stop; to put something better on. Our suggestion was "The Green Arrow" with his sidekick, "Speedy", but the head of the studio, allegedly wrote back saying (and God I wish I had kept that) that they appreciated our letters but they had already invested a lot of money in Batman. Also that they had a new show they hoped we would like, "The Green Hornet". That show, with Bruce Lee as Cato, was a hit with my friends and I. BRUCE LEE! That other guy, his boss, only got in the way of our seeing Bruce on each episode.
Then there was the Star Trek fiasco. After only three seasons, they killed it. They said the numbers weren't high enough. Excuse me? In hindsight, do you think maybe they were idiots? Perhaps these "numbers" weren't a good way to rate a show?
Eventually, they added more and more commercials so that shows got shorter and shorter. They bleeped words, cut words, actually injected Different words because of FCC regulations. Nothing "questionable" was allowed on TV. Britain has far less stringent standards and they seem to have done rather well, morally speaking. So have other even less stringent countries.
Jump ahead to post millennium days. Now.
Cable shows are the worst at putting advertising up. We were told that if we paid for cable channels there'd be no commercials. What happened to that?
First, they had commercials. Then they started, on some channels to compress the ending titles of shows and movies to put in advertising. Then it got to the point that the speed or compression of titles actually made it impossible to read.
Now, they are putting up advertising on the actual show you are watching. Even if it's a pay channel. They take up the entire bottom third of the screen, even half sometimes, seemingly. It's offensive, it's irritating. It should be actually, Illegal. Once they discovered how valuable that space is, they went nuts. They have learned over time how to be intrusive but less intrusive. But that should fall under the 1960's ruling that you cannot use subliminal perception. Basically, they are trying to persuade us without our realizing it.
Do you ever notice these ads are there but you realize you really didn't notice it? That is subliminal advertising. Which is, illegal.
I would actually claim that the actual shows they show us, are our property, no longer theirs. I have long said, that to show a show or movie on TV (cable, whatever) it should be illegal to change at all what the original format was. No, "This show has been altered to fit your screen (pan and scan)". No compression show times to fit the time slot. No squeezing the titles to get in more ads. And certainly no showing ads during the actual show.
What really gets me, drives me up the wall, is when I'm watching a show, and they advertise for the show I'm watching, while I'm watching it!
One more, the relatively recent act of ending a segment of a show to go to commercial, then after the commercials are over, they show you what you just saw, in order to remind your stupid brain what you just saw, and to save having to do more show, by replaying as much of a show as possible, again.
Finally, the situation with "The Event". These studios have to stop giving us shows and then killing them, either so soon, or without any resolution whatsoever.
Case in point, Joss Whedon's billiant, "Firefly", "Flashforward" and now, "The Event." Not good enough numbers? The REASON I didn't watch "The Event" was absolutely because of how they have treated us, their viewing public. I don't WANT to get caught again investing my care and time to watch a show that will simply be pulled due to anything, other than the show's "story arc" has completed.
And so, I do think, much like passengers on airplanes need a "Bill of Rights" to stop being abused by airlines, leaving them on the tarmac for hours before taking off, and all the other things, viewers need a "Bill of Rights" for studios to stop abusing their people, the people who pay their bills. They should be trying to make us loyal like we love them, not like we fear watching their shows because of low quality or cut offs. Not low quality of a show, but the low quality of presenting and maintaining the show. All those things around what the production itself has done. Not to mention, what a slap in the face it is to the actors, writers, producers, directors and crews. They do a good job and they get cut. Off to find work elsewhere.
They used to know that it takes a while for a show to catch on. Now if you don't catch on in the first quarter, you're outta here baby.
Anytime we have that kind of power, it needs to be regulated. No I don't want the government to regulate creativity. I want the government to regulate the suits behind the creativity. I want the creatives to have more power, more consideration. And beyond them, I want the viewers to have more power. Perhaps we should unionize. There have been writers strikes that have changed the industry perhaps forever. Maybe not for the good, as it created "reality show", but then, some of those shows are great: "Top Chef" for one, and maybe some others, but that is arguable. Some have degenerated into trash, such as MTV's House Rules, which is a far cry from its first season.
The problem is, we can't just vote by not watching. We ARE watching, the shows we like, and they get cut anyway. We don't want to stop watching the shows we love, we just want them to stop being abused by compression, ads over the show, moving them around so much actually killing some shows by sheer stupidity. Although admittedly, those kinds of issues are basically gone now through things like DVRs and TIVO.
And that brings up the issue of how you rate a show watched later on DVRs. There is an entirely different article in that, how they abuse rating shows that are heavily watched on TIVO, rating them less if watched the next day and considering people aren't watching the commercials, the life's blood of shows.
Trouble with that theory is I always wait fifteen minutes into a show, before watching it so I can skip the adverts. So what's it matter if I watch it nearly live, or a week later. Believe it or not, I do see the ads, they are just faster. This is known by the studios and they are making ads that play well on fast speeds. It's an amazing area, really.
There is a new world. Studios and the business units behind them, need to catch up. They need to adhere to some rules that show care of their supporters, not just their advertisers. And the advertisers need to wake up even more.
Alienating your audience, is never a best use scenario.
Before I get started, I am not going to pay any attention at all to the argument that advertising pays the bills. That has become a kind of reverse moot point. And no, I won't explain that now. That is a fog that business people put up to blur what is actually happening; an a prioi, if you will, so we cannot at all discuss what the problem is, the dissatisfaction that is rampant. So for a moment, let's just look at the other side at the audiences who are being abused by these principles, the studios and those business people who are trying to make do, but pushing the limits to the point of poor taste and actually losing audiences.
I heard an article this past week that they are cancelling the show, "The Event." The article said that viewers won't even get to find out what the "Event", was.
Excuse me?
TV and cable are lucky I'm not an Attorney. Especially, a rich one. Because I would start a series of class action lawsuits against the TV and Cable industry.
Why? Oh, let me count the ways. Ever since I was a child I've been up against the TV media industry. When they first put on "Batman" with Adam West, my friends and I were upset. At first we thought, Awesome, a comic book hero on TV. We have finally been heard. But alas, it turned into a spoof of Batman, "The Dark Knight" almost immediately and only got worse from there. Yes, adults thought it was a hoot. It became a "thing" in Hollywood to get a cameo on the show. Yes, in hindsight that was cool, but I wasn't an adult back then and we thought they put on Batman, for us.
My friends and I sent the studio letters begging them to stop; to put something better on. Our suggestion was "The Green Arrow" with his sidekick, "Speedy", but the head of the studio, allegedly wrote back saying (and God I wish I had kept that) that they appreciated our letters but they had already invested a lot of money in Batman. Also that they had a new show they hoped we would like, "The Green Hornet". That show, with Bruce Lee as Cato, was a hit with my friends and I. BRUCE LEE! That other guy, his boss, only got in the way of our seeing Bruce on each episode.
Then there was the Star Trek fiasco. After only three seasons, they killed it. They said the numbers weren't high enough. Excuse me? In hindsight, do you think maybe they were idiots? Perhaps these "numbers" weren't a good way to rate a show?
Eventually, they added more and more commercials so that shows got shorter and shorter. They bleeped words, cut words, actually injected Different words because of FCC regulations. Nothing "questionable" was allowed on TV. Britain has far less stringent standards and they seem to have done rather well, morally speaking. So have other even less stringent countries.
Jump ahead to post millennium days. Now.
Cable shows are the worst at putting advertising up. We were told that if we paid for cable channels there'd be no commercials. What happened to that?
First, they had commercials. Then they started, on some channels to compress the ending titles of shows and movies to put in advertising. Then it got to the point that the speed or compression of titles actually made it impossible to read.
Now, they are putting up advertising on the actual show you are watching. Even if it's a pay channel. They take up the entire bottom third of the screen, even half sometimes, seemingly. It's offensive, it's irritating. It should be actually, Illegal. Once they discovered how valuable that space is, they went nuts. They have learned over time how to be intrusive but less intrusive. But that should fall under the 1960's ruling that you cannot use subliminal perception. Basically, they are trying to persuade us without our realizing it.
Do you ever notice these ads are there but you realize you really didn't notice it? That is subliminal advertising. Which is, illegal.
I would actually claim that the actual shows they show us, are our property, no longer theirs. I have long said, that to show a show or movie on TV (cable, whatever) it should be illegal to change at all what the original format was. No, "This show has been altered to fit your screen (pan and scan)". No compression show times to fit the time slot. No squeezing the titles to get in more ads. And certainly no showing ads during the actual show.
What really gets me, drives me up the wall, is when I'm watching a show, and they advertise for the show I'm watching, while I'm watching it!
One more, the relatively recent act of ending a segment of a show to go to commercial, then after the commercials are over, they show you what you just saw, in order to remind your stupid brain what you just saw, and to save having to do more show, by replaying as much of a show as possible, again.
Finally, the situation with "The Event". These studios have to stop giving us shows and then killing them, either so soon, or without any resolution whatsoever.
Case in point, Joss Whedon's billiant, "Firefly", "Flashforward" and now, "The Event." Not good enough numbers? The REASON I didn't watch "The Event" was absolutely because of how they have treated us, their viewing public. I don't WANT to get caught again investing my care and time to watch a show that will simply be pulled due to anything, other than the show's "story arc" has completed.
And so, I do think, much like passengers on airplanes need a "Bill of Rights" to stop being abused by airlines, leaving them on the tarmac for hours before taking off, and all the other things, viewers need a "Bill of Rights" for studios to stop abusing their people, the people who pay their bills. They should be trying to make us loyal like we love them, not like we fear watching their shows because of low quality or cut offs. Not low quality of a show, but the low quality of presenting and maintaining the show. All those things around what the production itself has done. Not to mention, what a slap in the face it is to the actors, writers, producers, directors and crews. They do a good job and they get cut. Off to find work elsewhere.
They used to know that it takes a while for a show to catch on. Now if you don't catch on in the first quarter, you're outta here baby.
Anytime we have that kind of power, it needs to be regulated. No I don't want the government to regulate creativity. I want the government to regulate the suits behind the creativity. I want the creatives to have more power, more consideration. And beyond them, I want the viewers to have more power. Perhaps we should unionize. There have been writers strikes that have changed the industry perhaps forever. Maybe not for the good, as it created "reality show", but then, some of those shows are great: "Top Chef" for one, and maybe some others, but that is arguable. Some have degenerated into trash, such as MTV's House Rules, which is a far cry from its first season.
The problem is, we can't just vote by not watching. We ARE watching, the shows we like, and they get cut anyway. We don't want to stop watching the shows we love, we just want them to stop being abused by compression, ads over the show, moving them around so much actually killing some shows by sheer stupidity. Although admittedly, those kinds of issues are basically gone now through things like DVRs and TIVO.
And that brings up the issue of how you rate a show watched later on DVRs. There is an entirely different article in that, how they abuse rating shows that are heavily watched on TIVO, rating them less if watched the next day and considering people aren't watching the commercials, the life's blood of shows.
Trouble with that theory is I always wait fifteen minutes into a show, before watching it so I can skip the adverts. So what's it matter if I watch it nearly live, or a week later. Believe it or not, I do see the ads, they are just faster. This is known by the studios and they are making ads that play well on fast speeds. It's an amazing area, really.
There is a new world. Studios and the business units behind them, need to catch up. They need to adhere to some rules that show care of their supporters, not just their advertisers. And the advertisers need to wake up even more.
Alienating your audience, is never a best use scenario.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Johnny Depp as The Thin Man? Yes, and I couldn't be happier.
Probably my favorite movie franchise of all time, would have to be, "The Thin Man."
Possibly my favorite movie of all time, would be the perfect little film called, "Casablanca" with Humphrey Bogart. Bogie rocks, don't get me wrong. I collect all his movies.
But for all out couples power, entertainment and drinking fun, Nick and Nora Charles rock. I have all those movies.
But now, it's being remade with Johnny Depp and I couldn't be happier. Usually I don't like remakes like this, but I love the series and would love someone like Depp to take a run at it. I can't think of anyone else I could believe might be able to take on the role and do something positive with it.
The Thin Man series of films started in 1934 and starred William Powell and one of the hottest babes of all time, Myrna Loy. Both of them had great careers but when they put them together in this series, things really took off.
The Thin Man (1934) is a detective novel by Dashiell Hammett, originally published in Redbook. Although he never wrote a sequel, the book became the basis for a successful six-part film series which also began in 1934 with The Thin Man and starred William Powell and Myrna Loy. A Thin Man television series followed in the 1950s. Albert Hackett and Frances Goodrich penned the screenplay and later the iconic "It's a Wonderful Life".
William Powell was a great enjoyable actor to watch, in any movie he was in, but my favorites was The Thin Man character.
Myrna Loy is one of my all time hottest babes in movies.
No really, I mean it.
No really, I mean it.
Okay, okay, enough of my obsessions. The story is set in Prohibition-era New York City. The main characters are a former private detective, Nick Charles, and his clever young wife, Nora. Nick, son of a Greek immigrant, has given up his career since marrying Nora, a wealthy socialite, and he now spends most of his time cheerfully getting drunk in hotel rooms and speakeasies. Nick and Nora have no children, but they do own a wire-haired terrier named Asta.
Charles is drawn, mostly against his will, into investigating a murder. The case brings them in contact with a rather grotesque family, the Wynants, and also with an assortment of policemen and lowlifes. As they attempt to solve the case, Nick and Nora share a great deal of banter and witty dialogue, along with copious amounts of alcohol.
It is the relationship Nick and Nora share, along with their ease at life, their drinking and having fun behavior and loyalty to one another, and respect for one another's autonomy, that I find so fascinating and enjoyable. I would do just about anything to BE Nick Charles. Too much fun.
As for the remake, Collider.com reported that" "Rob Marshall is to Direct Johnny Depp and John DeLuca to Produce. Last year, we reported that Johnny Depp wanted to reunite with his Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides director Rob Marshall for a new adaptation of Dashiell Hammett’s The Thin Man. We have now received a press release confirming that Marshall is on board to direct and that John DeLuca (Nine) will produce through the duo’s LUCAMAR Productions company."
The question in my mind, is who will take Myrna Loy's role and how in the world is anyone going to be able to replace HER? Good luck guys. But I can't tell you how much I hope you pull it off. I haven't wanted a project to work this badly in years.
Go for it. Best of luck!
Possibly my favorite movie of all time, would be the perfect little film called, "Casablanca" with Humphrey Bogart. Bogie rocks, don't get me wrong. I collect all his movies.
![]() |
Nick, Asta and Nora Charles |
But for all out couples power, entertainment and drinking fun, Nick and Nora Charles rock. I have all those movies.
But now, it's being remade with Johnny Depp and I couldn't be happier. Usually I don't like remakes like this, but I love the series and would love someone like Depp to take a run at it. I can't think of anyone else I could believe might be able to take on the role and do something positive with it.
The Thin Man series of films started in 1934 and starred William Powell and one of the hottest babes of all time, Myrna Loy. Both of them had great careers but when they put them together in this series, things really took off.
The Thin Man (1934) is a detective novel by Dashiell Hammett, originally published in Redbook. Although he never wrote a sequel, the book became the basis for a successful six-part film series which also began in 1934 with The Thin Man and starred William Powell and Myrna Loy. A Thin Man television series followed in the 1950s. Albert Hackett and Frances Goodrich penned the screenplay and later the iconic "It's a Wonderful Life".
William Powell was a great enjoyable actor to watch, in any movie he was in, but my favorites was The Thin Man character.
Myrna Loy is one of my all time hottest babes in movies.
No really, I mean it.
No really, I mean it.
Okay, okay, enough of my obsessions. The story is set in Prohibition-era New York City. The main characters are a former private detective, Nick Charles, and his clever young wife, Nora. Nick, son of a Greek immigrant, has given up his career since marrying Nora, a wealthy socialite, and he now spends most of his time cheerfully getting drunk in hotel rooms and speakeasies. Nick and Nora have no children, but they do own a wire-haired terrier named Asta.
Charles is drawn, mostly against his will, into investigating a murder. The case brings them in contact with a rather grotesque family, the Wynants, and also with an assortment of policemen and lowlifes. As they attempt to solve the case, Nick and Nora share a great deal of banter and witty dialogue, along with copious amounts of alcohol.
It is the relationship Nick and Nora share, along with their ease at life, their drinking and having fun behavior and loyalty to one another, and respect for one another's autonomy, that I find so fascinating and enjoyable. I would do just about anything to BE Nick Charles. Too much fun.
As for the remake, Collider.com reported that" "Rob Marshall is to Direct Johnny Depp and John DeLuca to Produce. Last year, we reported that Johnny Depp wanted to reunite with his Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides director Rob Marshall for a new adaptation of Dashiell Hammett’s The Thin Man. We have now received a press release confirming that Marshall is on board to direct and that John DeLuca (Nine) will produce through the duo’s LUCAMAR Productions company."
The question in my mind, is who will take Myrna Loy's role and how in the world is anyone going to be able to replace HER? Good luck guys. But I can't tell you how much I hope you pull it off. I haven't wanted a project to work this badly in years.
Go for it. Best of luck!
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Hey, I have an idea, you should write it!
Ever have someone beg you to read their writing? When you are a professional writer, it happens even more frequently, trust me.
Mostly, I would shy away from someone desperate for you to read their work. Sounds funny, but it's from experience. Those people for me, have tended to be amateurs. And I've read too many things like that already and it usually ends up wasting my time.
For most of them, if you try to help them, they really aren't that interested in getting better, in doing the work or in learning. They really just want to hear you say that it was great and then they would have written the great story, novel or script without any real effort. I first remind them that writing is rewriting, for any writer.
Anyone can write, but to turn out something good takes editing yourself. It takes practice. It takes learning rules and other unrelated to writing things. Most the time, people simply lose interest at that point.
I really have no time for people like that. After you've gone through that enough times, you get tired of even having to say no.
Now, on the other hand, if some friend can prove to me they are serious, then they can quite easily get my time. But I don't want to spend the time, to waste my time, when in the end, they don't also want to spend the time, especially if they simply want me to edit it, to turn it into some masterpiece for them. I have my own works I spent decades learning how to write.
I've run into this many times:
"Hey, I have a great story idea for a book, a screenplay, whatever. You should write it."
Usually they are passionate about it, energetic; they mean well. They just don't see it from the other side.
Problem is, I have plenty of my own ideas to write and already not enough time to write them. I seldom need other ideas. still, I will usually listen and be polite if I have the time. A friend just the other day had a great idea. I offered to him that if he would just write it up I'd work on it with him, but he really wasn't interested.
So I could only say that when I find the time we can work on it together. If I do write the script for it, I'll give him story credit. But he has yet to give me that. Maybe I should give him "concept by" credit or something?
Writing a book or screenplay, takes an intense personal and emotional investment. It's much harder, for me, to take someone else's idea and turn it into something if I'm not invested deeply in it. You can do it, but honestly, if it's yours to the core, you can simply do it to a more deeply passionate level. And that's what makes it all worth it. Otherwise, I might as well go back to being a technical writer.
Just my two cents. :)
Mostly, I would shy away from someone desperate for you to read their work. Sounds funny, but it's from experience. Those people for me, have tended to be amateurs. And I've read too many things like that already and it usually ends up wasting my time.
For most of them, if you try to help them, they really aren't that interested in getting better, in doing the work or in learning. They really just want to hear you say that it was great and then they would have written the great story, novel or script without any real effort. I first remind them that writing is rewriting, for any writer.
Anyone can write, but to turn out something good takes editing yourself. It takes practice. It takes learning rules and other unrelated to writing things. Most the time, people simply lose interest at that point.
I really have no time for people like that. After you've gone through that enough times, you get tired of even having to say no.
Now, on the other hand, if some friend can prove to me they are serious, then they can quite easily get my time. But I don't want to spend the time, to waste my time, when in the end, they don't also want to spend the time, especially if they simply want me to edit it, to turn it into some masterpiece for them. I have my own works I spent decades learning how to write.
I've run into this many times:
"Hey, I have a great story idea for a book, a screenplay, whatever. You should write it."
Usually they are passionate about it, energetic; they mean well. They just don't see it from the other side.
Problem is, I have plenty of my own ideas to write and already not enough time to write them. I seldom need other ideas. still, I will usually listen and be polite if I have the time. A friend just the other day had a great idea. I offered to him that if he would just write it up I'd work on it with him, but he really wasn't interested.
So I could only say that when I find the time we can work on it together. If I do write the script for it, I'll give him story credit. But he has yet to give me that. Maybe I should give him "concept by" credit or something?
Writing a book or screenplay, takes an intense personal and emotional investment. It's much harder, for me, to take someone else's idea and turn it into something if I'm not invested deeply in it. You can do it, but honestly, if it's yours to the core, you can simply do it to a more deeply passionate level. And that's what makes it all worth it. Otherwise, I might as well go back to being a technical writer.
Just my two cents. :)
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Sirius / XM Satellite Radio
Do you have Satellite Radio yet? No? Really? Do you love commercials?
Having a piped in availability to the music and programs you want without commercials as with broadcast, has to be worth something. Not to mention, your transmission is coming not from across the land via an antenna land based and blocked by too many obstacles, but from the sky, directly overhead (or thereabouts).
Plenty of channels, even individual rock bands have their own channels in some cases, such as The Rolling Stones. Can you believe it?
The original argument against Sirius and XM Satellite radio (now merged) were tired and old arguments. It was the longest time for the approval of this merger by the US Government (18 months) and others have tried hard to kill the company ever since. But, Sirius/XM is still alive and kicking. All those efforts to kill the merger and the company had dropped it down to .19 a share. Today, it is at $2.20 a share (last week it made it up to $2.40 a share). And it keeps going strong.
I do think we need to support new technologies. The newest argument is that Internet Radio will kill Satellite. That's possible. But perhaps we have another add-on, or merger in the works. Hard telling. But they seem like a dynamic company that wants to keep going and acts like the little engine that can do.
Aside from all that, you get it free in new cars (a genius stroke on the part of the company years ago) and after you listen to it for a while with no commercials and with the content you want, it's hard to go back to commercially broadcast standard radio. Even Internet radio has its problems. If you've ever listened to it, you probably ran into that. The Internet is not quite there yet. Of course part of that problem is in the US we have some of the worst bandwidth available in the World. Just look at South Korea. I mean come on. South KOREA?
I think we have a pretty good situation. For those who can afford that monthly subscription fee of $12.95 for 120 channels on Sirius / XM radio. If you want to listen on your laptop or internet device, it's $2.95/mo. Not bad there.
So for now I think Sirius / XM is doing well and not going anywhere for the foreseeable future. My hope is they will morph into something we didn't see coming. Innovation is key in this world. They need to expand into... I don't know what. But keep an eye on them.
Having a piped in availability to the music and programs you want without commercials as with broadcast, has to be worth something. Not to mention, your transmission is coming not from across the land via an antenna land based and blocked by too many obstacles, but from the sky, directly overhead (or thereabouts).
Plenty of channels, even individual rock bands have their own channels in some cases, such as The Rolling Stones. Can you believe it?
The original argument against Sirius and XM Satellite radio (now merged) were tired and old arguments. It was the longest time for the approval of this merger by the US Government (18 months) and others have tried hard to kill the company ever since. But, Sirius/XM is still alive and kicking. All those efforts to kill the merger and the company had dropped it down to .19 a share. Today, it is at $2.20 a share (last week it made it up to $2.40 a share). And it keeps going strong.
I do think we need to support new technologies. The newest argument is that Internet Radio will kill Satellite. That's possible. But perhaps we have another add-on, or merger in the works. Hard telling. But they seem like a dynamic company that wants to keep going and acts like the little engine that can do.
Aside from all that, you get it free in new cars (a genius stroke on the part of the company years ago) and after you listen to it for a while with no commercials and with the content you want, it's hard to go back to commercially broadcast standard radio. Even Internet radio has its problems. If you've ever listened to it, you probably ran into that. The Internet is not quite there yet. Of course part of that problem is in the US we have some of the worst bandwidth available in the World. Just look at South Korea. I mean come on. South KOREA?
I think we have a pretty good situation. For those who can afford that monthly subscription fee of $12.95 for 120 channels on Sirius / XM radio. If you want to listen on your laptop or internet device, it's $2.95/mo. Not bad there.
So for now I think Sirius / XM is doing well and not going anywhere for the foreseeable future. My hope is they will morph into something we didn't see coming. Innovation is key in this world. They need to expand into... I don't know what. But keep an eye on them.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Reefer Tunes - Music about Cannabis, back when it wasn't such an issue
As I said Friday, Blogger was down for a couple of days, so I released my Thursday blog Friday and this was to have been Friday's blog. Well, here it is now. Enjoy:
Someone posted this song, previously unknown to me, today on facebook and it got me thinking, what great tunes are out there, banned or unknown, just because they related or referred to something unacceptable by the Zeitgeist of the times?
The first one, mentioned above, is one on YouTube, performed by Cab Calloway, one of my favorite musicians of the past.
Smoking Reefers - Cab Calloway
Reefer man - Cab Calloway
This one, from the Harlem Experiment, with Taj Majal, is just too funny and anti-Bush (Jr.) so I had to include it - Reefer Man
Another, this one by a group I never heard of , but it's incredibly good.
Weed Smoker's Dream - Harlem Hamfats. According to the poster, MoleDFigg: "Despite their name, the "Harlem" Hamfats were a Chicago band in the 1930's whose members came from various places; for example, the McCoy brothers hailed from Mississipi, Herb Morand, John Lindsay and Odell Rand were from New Orleans and Horace Malcolm and Freddy Flynn came from Chicago!!"
Sweet Marijuana Brown - (may be) Barney Bigard Sextet
The closing music used on the second segment of the community cable access television series, 'Time 4 Hemp', hosted by Casper Leitch. To find out more about the first television series to ever focus on the topic of marijuana, check out http://www.Time4Hemp.com where you can find over 80 free video and 100 free audio downloads.
Time 4 Hemp © Casper Leitch - 1991
When I Get Low I Get High - Ella Fitzgerald with Chick Webb and His Orchestra.
My brother mentioned this to me:
"You gotta keep one thing in mind about those old tunes by black folk, they almost always had double meanings, first one be for white folk, the ordinary just what you hear, the second one would be the black man's code for slamming the man [government], or whitey, or what or who ever, and also lots about sex, a lot of it had sexual hidden references. Or as Shrek would say, "the blues is like an onion, with many layers."
"You ever heard Henry Thomas doing Bull Doze blues? they be Playing it now on the BB King Blues channel See if it sounds familiar: Bull Doze Blues by Henry Thomas
"This one might jog your brain if you didn't recognize Henry's tune revised version
"Gotta love that You tube for preserving this kinda stuff."
And that was what my older brother had to say about it all.
Yes, we have more obviously, contemporary artists, like Neil Diamond, a great artist, but not a great song
Pot Smoker's Song This is from his album "Velvet Gloves and Spit". I think this was an anti drug song. But like many, it was mixing up the good with the bad.
Do I think coffee should be included with cigarettes and alcohol? No. Is it questionable? Yes, but as with most things, only in its misuse. Research has shown many positive qualities to coffee. And the same with Cannabis. The fact that both give the users a pleasant, euphoric boost, shouldn't have any bearing on the positive effects. Can you say that about cigarettes, heroin, cocaine? Yes, but the I would argue the downside of those drugs, that should be categorized as narcotics, were as Cannabis should not, is an important consideration.
Speaking of coffee, here is Black Coffee by Ella Fitzgerald. I honestly can't make up my mind after listening to a few versions of this song, if I like (other than Ella) Peggy Lee's version or Sinad O'Connor's. I didn't like Julie London's version, or some others I heard (KD Lang). But then, in an entirely different vein, there was Henry's Black Flag version; maybe they should have called that "VERY Black Coffee with shots of espresso".
Getting back to the original concept here, of course there are other more recent artists who have turned out a good tune or two and mentioning those everyone knows, is boring.
Here is Red Wine and Reefer from poster ellisdrecords by BURNETTE DOWN & THE ASHES (Ellis Parrish, Travis Brawley, Joe Carroll, & Martin Penman filling in for Jarad Wilson) burn it down and leave the place in ashes! This one features EllisD on vocals! Originally "Champagne & Reefer", the champagne opposed lead singer changed the lyric to reflect his own taste in spirits. This wine drinking, joint smoker's anthem was recorded in December of 2006 at Fenian's Pub in Jackson, MS and was their second show EVER! Video footage recorded by John Bragg.
A Muddy Waters Cover by the Legendary Jones Gang - Champagne and Reefer
Stevie Ray Vaughan & Buddy Guy's Champagne & Reefer
And the original Champagne Reefer by Muddy Waters.
Well, I could go on and on, deeper into the blues at this point, but I think you get the drift.
Have a great day!
Someone posted this song, previously unknown to me, today on facebook and it got me thinking, what great tunes are out there, banned or unknown, just because they related or referred to something unacceptable by the Zeitgeist of the times?
The first one, mentioned above, is one on YouTube, performed by Cab Calloway, one of my favorite musicians of the past.
Smoking Reefers - Cab Calloway
Reefer man - Cab Calloway
This one, from the Harlem Experiment, with Taj Majal, is just too funny and anti-Bush (Jr.) so I had to include it - Reefer Man
Another, this one by a group I never heard of , but it's incredibly good.
Weed Smoker's Dream - Harlem Hamfats. According to the poster, MoleDFigg: "Despite their name, the "Harlem" Hamfats were a Chicago band in the 1930's whose members came from various places; for example, the McCoy brothers hailed from Mississipi, Herb Morand, John Lindsay and Odell Rand were from New Orleans and Horace Malcolm and Freddy Flynn came from Chicago!!"
Sweet Marijuana Brown - (may be) Barney Bigard Sextet
The closing music used on the second segment of the community cable access television series, 'Time 4 Hemp', hosted by Casper Leitch. To find out more about the first television series to ever focus on the topic of marijuana, check out http://www.Time4Hemp.com where you can find over 80 free video and 100 free audio downloads.
Time 4 Hemp © Casper Leitch - 1991
When I Get Low I Get High - Ella Fitzgerald with Chick Webb and His Orchestra.
My brother mentioned this to me:
"You gotta keep one thing in mind about those old tunes by black folk, they almost always had double meanings, first one be for white folk, the ordinary just what you hear, the second one would be the black man's code for slamming the man [government], or whitey, or what or who ever, and also lots about sex, a lot of it had sexual hidden references. Or as Shrek would say, "the blues is like an onion, with many layers."
"You ever heard Henry Thomas doing Bull Doze blues? they be Playing it now on the BB King Blues channel See if it sounds familiar: Bull Doze Blues by Henry Thomas
"This one might jog your brain if you didn't recognize Henry's tune revised version
"Gotta love that You tube for preserving this kinda stuff."
And that was what my older brother had to say about it all.
Yes, we have more obviously, contemporary artists, like Neil Diamond, a great artist, but not a great song
Pot Smoker's Song This is from his album "Velvet Gloves and Spit". I think this was an anti drug song. But like many, it was mixing up the good with the bad.
Do I think coffee should be included with cigarettes and alcohol? No. Is it questionable? Yes, but as with most things, only in its misuse. Research has shown many positive qualities to coffee. And the same with Cannabis. The fact that both give the users a pleasant, euphoric boost, shouldn't have any bearing on the positive effects. Can you say that about cigarettes, heroin, cocaine? Yes, but the I would argue the downside of those drugs, that should be categorized as narcotics, were as Cannabis should not, is an important consideration.
Speaking of coffee, here is Black Coffee by Ella Fitzgerald. I honestly can't make up my mind after listening to a few versions of this song, if I like (other than Ella) Peggy Lee's version or Sinad O'Connor's. I didn't like Julie London's version, or some others I heard (KD Lang). But then, in an entirely different vein, there was Henry's Black Flag version; maybe they should have called that "VERY Black Coffee with shots of espresso".
Getting back to the original concept here, of course there are other more recent artists who have turned out a good tune or two and mentioning those everyone knows, is boring.
Here is Red Wine and Reefer from poster ellisdrecords by BURNETTE DOWN & THE ASHES (Ellis Parrish, Travis Brawley, Joe Carroll, & Martin Penman filling in for Jarad Wilson) burn it down and leave the place in ashes! This one features EllisD on vocals! Originally "Champagne & Reefer", the champagne opposed lead singer changed the lyric to reflect his own taste in spirits. This wine drinking, joint smoker's anthem was recorded in December of 2006 at Fenian's Pub in Jackson, MS and was their second show EVER! Video footage recorded by John Bragg.
A Muddy Waters Cover by the Legendary Jones Gang - Champagne and Reefer
Stevie Ray Vaughan & Buddy Guy's Champagne & Reefer
And the original Champagne Reefer by Muddy Waters.
Well, I could go on and on, deeper into the blues at this point, but I think you get the drift.
Have a great day!
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Weekend Wise Words
Be Sharp! Be Brilliant!
A reporter was trying to set Gandhi up to acknowledge the "superiority" of Western ideas:
"What do you think about Western Civilization?"
Gandhi's response:
"Well, I think that would be a good idea!"
You know what? So do I.
"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson, 1816
Considering what has been done to our Nation and Middle Class by the bankers, Government agencies and individuals of this upper economic and banking class, I'd have to agree. Those at the top have deconstructed far too many of the protections of the people in these last few decades than in the last hundred years of building them up.
A reporter was trying to set Gandhi up to acknowledge the "superiority" of Western ideas:
"What do you think about Western Civilization?"
Gandhi's response:
"Well, I think that would be a good idea!"
You know what? So do I.
"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson, 1816
Considering what has been done to our Nation and Middle Class by the bankers, Government agencies and individuals of this upper economic and banking class, I'd have to agree. Those at the top have deconstructed far too many of the protections of the people in these last few decades than in the last hundred years of building them up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)