Applications are open until October 11th.
Sadly, my henchmen - Butterball and The Human Chihuahua - are on vacation, and training temps at this late hour is just not a headache I’m willing to take on.
I’ll be interested to see what poser gets the spot that is rightfully mine.
Apparently, I’m prejudiced.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, I persisted in believing an unfounded assumption rather than taking a few minutes to find out the truth. Because of that stupidity, I missed out on some enjoyment. Luckily, I can make up for that in this case. As I’ll come back to, that’s not always true.
The name “Five for Fighting” applied to a music group immediately conjured up images of hard, driving rock music, with lots of screaming and anger. It’s just the name alone that brought that image to mind. The only music I had heard from the group at that time was “Superman (It’s Not Easy),” which is one of my favorite songs. But I persisted in my faulty image, thinking that maybe this was the song that broke their mold, and the rest of their songs were just as I imagined.
Then I heard a couple more of their songs, and they were all very nice, acoustic piano-driven songs with thoughtful lyrics and beautiful orchestration. And still I rationalized. “Maybe they do one nice song per album.”
Eventually I realized that was a stupid assumption to make and I should look into the group and see if I was missing out on something great. Still, it took a while to do anything about it. In fact, it wasn’t until I started exploring Pandora that I really found out how stupid I am.
I had a lot of my facts wrong. First off, “Five for Fighting” isn’t a group. It’s a guy. He just figured his name was harder to remember than a marketing title, and he was right. I haven’t had any trouble remembering the name (which refers to a hockey penalty) - I just associated it poorly. Which leads to my other large mistake. It’s still amazing to me that presented with nothing but music that I loved, I still had this notion that the majority of Five for Fighting’s catalog would be stuff I hated. I’ve listened to probably 15 of his songs now, and I have liked all of them. Most share the same acoustic, orchestrated, piano-led sound.
While I have a few contenders for my favorite so far, I have to give the nod to the radio hit “100 years”.
That song perfectly blends many of the elements I love. Strong rhythm piano, nice orchestration, a distinctive sound, strong solo work moving into full instrumentation, and lyrics about the passage of time and life. I’m a sucker for the “time passing” motif.
So why, presented with only music that I love, did I persist in my prejudiced viewpoint? Ignorance. Ignorance is at the heart of all prejudice.
There are people who hate others based only on their race. They don’t get to know the people or what they stand for at all - they simply believe their prejudiced views, despite evidence to the contrary. The same applies to religion and politics. There are Republicans who recoil at anything labeled “Democrat” without any knowledge of the message’s content. Likewise, there are Democrats who cringe at anything to come out of a Republican’s mouth, simply because a Republican said it, with no regard for the content of the statement (or its context).
This problem of prejudice is exacerbated by the sound-bite driven, attention-deficit guided media coverage that focuses on isolated incidents or statements with no regard to context, frequently presenting a misleading, or even wholly inaccurate, picture.
Don’t allow prejudice to guide you. Don’t be ignorant. Don’t assume that you know; know that you know. Find out the truth. You don’t have to agree with it, but discover the truth. Unlike choosing which music group to listen to, some choices can have lasting and dangerous consequences.
And on your way out, take a listen to this lesser known Five for Fighting song that I discovered after I started paying attention.
No, I’m not talking about downloadable, put-it-on-your-iPod-and-go music (well, the sites do make it easy to buy the singles as a download). I’m talking about music to listen to when you’re connected to the internet.
There are lots of sites that provide ways to listen to songs online. There are three that I want to briefly touch on. Each require a free registration to do anything beyond listen.
First, imeem.com bills itself as “a social network where millions of fans and artists discover new music, videos, and photos, and share their tastes with friends.” That’s great and all, but for my money, it’s a place to get on-demand singles to listen to. Do a search and you can come up with at least one song for most artists. I’ve even searched for artists I was pretty sure they wouldn’t have and gotten a hit. There are a few that don’t have representation yet, but it is a social site, so you can even upload it yourself if you want. It’s like YouTube for music. As a social site, one of its focuses (foci, for you elitists), is sharing. It’s easy to embed clips (not full songs, usually) on your blog, or Facebook, or wherever. That’s a nice feature, though I’d prefer to be able to choose the part of the song for the clip.
Other than YouTube, that’s the best way I’ve found to get a quick hit of on-demand music.
The other two sites I’ve played with are both “self-programmed” internet radio stations. “Self-programmed” is a bit of a misnomer, though, because it’s not like you choose the individual songs, or even artists, to play on the station. You identify some criteria and it pulls together related songs for you to enjoy. As the songs are playing, you can rate them and that affects the frequency of that and similar songs/artists on the station. That’s still a step up, in my opinion, from a traditional radio station where you have no control over the playlist at all. And because the choices are based on some criteria you entered, any songs/artists you haven’t heard before have a better chance of being something you like.
Years ago I found a site that has since been bought by Yahoo! and is now Yahoo! Music’s LAUNCHcast. I put a lot of time into rating songs on my station, but there are still some surprise entries in there every once in a while that I downright hate. The self-referential ads inserted between every fifth song or so get annoying too. Still, it’s a good eclectic mix of my favorite types of music, and the good far outweighs the bad.
On LAUNCHcast, music is chosen by identifying artists and genres initially, then rating individual songs, albums, and artists. I like that you can be pretty granular in your ratings (scale of 1-100 or a 5-star method - your choice), which gives me a sense of better control.
The downside of this one is that it only works in Internet Explorer, which means I rarely listen to it anymore, because I rarely fire up IE. Plus, it drives me crazy that they refuse to support the other browsers so I stay away on principle for the most part. Still, I do enjoy listening to the station every few months and would listen more if they were more open. If you’re on IE all the time anyway, this may not be an issue for you.
More recently (today, in fact), I ran across Pandora.com. This gets my vote for the best way to listen to internet radio. The interface is Flash-based, so over 90% of the world should have no problem with compatibility. It’s also incredibly simple to get started. Just identify a single artist or song that you like and it will identify characteristics in the Music Genome Project database that are shared with other songs to build your playlist (called ’seeding’). These guys know music, and they are matching that knowledge with technology to support them. It’s a beautiful thing.
There are ads supporting it, but they are visual, and therefore easily ignored.
There are three minor downsides that I’ve found in the few hours I’ve been listening to Pandora. First, the rating system is kind of limited (thumbs up/down), but that’s only a problem for the obsessives among us, I’d imagine (others would use terms like ‘elegant and simple’). Second, there is no easy “embed this song” or “embed this station” options that I’ve run across yet. Again, not a huge deal, but it’d be nice. Finally, a few songs seemed to repeat in a relatively short time period (an hour or so). I’m guessing that’s because I marked them as “thumbs up” and I have relatively little other information that I’ve contributed at this point so it will improve as I add further variation.
Overall, I think I’ll be spending a lot of time on my Pandora stations. The experiments I’ve been doing on it so far are promising. It does a better job of pulling together playlists I’m interested in than Yahoo! does with less interaction. Once I really start putting together ratings and additional seeds I think it will be a great station (or set of stations, as the case may be).
If you’re looking for some background music at your computer, you could do far worse than Pandora. If you’re looking for on-demand tracks, give imeem a shot.
Today a guest post I wrote was published on the personal finance blog Gather Little by Little. Thanks to Glblguy for putting it up!
I figured a couple people might wander over here from GLBL, so it seemed like a good time to welcome all new visitors and provide a quick overview of this site.
I post here about a wide variety of things, but tend to focus on a couple areas more often than others. The most frequent are reviews, rumors and news about movies and TV - mostly sci-fi related. I work in the Learning and Development field, so I also post about Learning Industry related topics, focusing primarily on technology-driven solutions to training problems.
The rest of the time I write about personal finance, interesting technology I find around the web, comics I read, and music I write or listen to. I also throw in some posts around parenting and funny things my kids do (I tend to re-read those myself more than anything else). Then there are those things that don’t fit anywhere else - most are things that just struck me as funny.
So it’s pretty eclectic around here. If you like what you see, take the opportunity to subscribe, and please leave a comment or two - I love continuing the conversations. (Don’t be surprised if it takes a while for your first post to show up, though… I get enough spam* that I hand-moderate all new users.)
I’m also considering a new recurring, interactive, and hopefully fun feature on the blog that I’d like to start within the month, so check back for news on that.
In any event, thanks for stopping by. I hope you enjoy the visit.
—————
* For some reason, even though it barely gets any hits, this is the most spammed post I have by far.
http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/
I haven’t laughed this hard for a while. I fell off my brother’s couch with tears streaming down my face as I tried to read these out loud to my wife. Here’s a short sample:
- If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you.
- There is no ‘ctrl’ button on Chuck Norris’s computer. Chuck Norris is always in control.
- When an episode of Walker Texas Ranger was aired in France, the French surrendered to Chuck Norris just to be on the safe side.
My favorite?
Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of surprise.
Apparently the man himself checked out the site at some point and identified his favorites. Here’s a sample of Norris-authenticated facts:
- When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
- Chuck Norris doesn’t read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
- There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
- Chuck Norris’ hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.
- Chuck Norris doesn’t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.
- Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
They’re not all quite that funny, but it’s worth some time.
One of the things that surprised me most about Dr. Horrible was the quality of the music. I knew Joss Whedon had written a musical episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer that got great fan reaction, but I’ve never seen it, so I didn’t know how good he and his brother were with music.
These two songs, the finale of act 1 and the start of act 2, are easily my favorites (though I love the first song of act 1 quite a bit as well).
I really think musically, “On the Rise” is probably the best song in the video. The interplay of the characters’ voices and lyrics is fantastic, plus it rapidly sets the tone for act two, which shows exactly what the song says - Dr. Horrible’s evil on the rise. This single video almost makes me believe a musical TV show could succeed (but then I remember “Cop Rock” - and I wonder if the general TV audience would be any more receptive now than in 1990).
Combine that quality music with the humor, and the quality story, and you have an explanation for the attention this internet-only little project has garnered (okay, it doesn’t hurt that Nathan Fillion, Neil Patrick Harris, and Joss Whedon all have rabid fan-bases).
The thing that might get me to actually buy the DVD when this comes out? Supposedly the commentary is going to be done purely in song. That is just too original of a concept to miss.
Warner will follow Marvel model to develop new superhero films : Slice of SciFi
Superman Returns darker
Ever since Superman Returns was released, rumors were flying about the sequel. Would it happen? Would Bryan Singer return to helm it? Would anybody watch it?
Not long ago (May 7th, in fact), we were hearing that Bryan Singer would be getting Superman: The Man of Steel to theaters in 2009 with wall-to-wall action in a sequel to Returns. Personally, I was pretty happy with that news. I really think Singer knows how to pull off a movie that’s both intelligent and action-packed, and respects the source material.
But now we hear that in the wake of the success of The Dark Knight, Warner Bros. will be putting a darker focus on all its superhero properties.
For fans, this means that the sequel to “Superman Returns” won’t be happening. Instead, the studio will look to take a page from this year’s “Incredible Hulk” and reboot the franchise. Part of this is a need to freshen the franchise, but part of this can also be attributed to the fact that “Returns” struggled to make back the investment Warner Brothers put into the movie.
[...]
Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as “The Dark Knight.” Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.’ DC properties. “We’re going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it,” he says. That goes for the company’s Superman franchise as well.
That’s disappointing. While I get treating superhero movies as real world and serious is important in creating believability, forcing a dark tone on everything is, I think, a mistake. It’s completely appropriate for Batman, but Superman’s main character traits are hope and optimism, and a bit of naiveté (at least on the surface). It is possible to go darker with him temporarily - and I think it could be done really well - but I really think it has to be in a sequel to be good. The character has to be developed as an incorruptible, “thank God he’s here” kind of character.
Plus, I gotta imagine this new direction means a significant delay before the Boy Scout graces the screen again. So that annoys me, too.
On a side note, the linked article also mentions the other properties under development: Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman. I’m excited about each of them. All could translate very well to the big screen.
SciFi opens a new Stargate : Slice of SciFi
As I mentioned in my last post, Stargate: Atlantis has been cancelled and will be wrapped up in a 2-hour movie. I also referred to a third potential Stargate series. That’s now been confirmed, and the title is Stargate: Universe.
The plot:
“Universe” introduces a team of explorers who find an ancient unmanned ship called the Destiny. Unable to return to Earth, the crew must fend for themselves aboard the ship, which has a preprogramd [sic] mission taking them to the far reaches of the universe.
Sound familiar? A group of explorers on a spaceship trying to get home? Wonder if it will have a female captain?
Anyway… as usual, I’ll watch it when it airs next summer. I’ll probably even like it. Then they’ll rip it away because it didn’t do American Idol numbers in its first 15 minutes.
GateWorld - SCI FI confirms Atlantis cancellation, TV movie
Stargate: Atlantis has been cancelled. The show will run through its 100th episode in January 2009 and end on a cliffhanger, which will be resolved by a 2-hour movie.
So basically, this is the new way the studios want to handle their successful franchises - run the series for a while, then make a few DVDs. I suppose I can’t blame them. The formula worked for SG-1. Those two movies were pretty good, really, and I hear they’re selling decently.
The press release is all rosy and positive about how great it will be to tell stories in this universe on a larger canvas. I’ve no doubt that the movies will be good, and feel larger than any individual episodes. The franchise, however, is gonna die.
Yeah, I know there’s another spin-off series under consideration. If it gets green-lit, it might last a couple seasons. But let’s be honest… SG-1 is still the base of the franchise in most fans’ minds. And they’ve wrapped up their story lines. There’s some vague talk about doing another SG-1 movie, but I don’t think it will happen - at least not any time soon. And that’s the problem: the longer you go between “episodes,” the smaller your fan base gets. The public isn’t really known for it’s large attention-span. By the time the next movie comes out, even the true fans will be saying “now, where were we in this story again?”
So they’re going to wrap up the Atlantis story in a 2-hour movie. Great! I’m glad we get the end of the story. I even think they’ll be successful in doing maybe 2 more after that, assuming they do them within 1 year. But they’ll be progressively less ‘large’ feeling, because they can’t build on each other - they have to be self-contained units. That doesn’t mean they won’t be good, they just won’t be as good as they could be.
If the new spin-off gets picked up, it will already be over before it starts. It’ll have growing pains as everyone gets used to it and we figure out if we like this copy of a copy. Then it’ll be cancelled just as it’s starting to get good, because it didn’t do gang-buster numbers out of the gate. Then they’ll make a DVD to tie it up… maybe.
So my prediction is that 2009 will have two Stargate DVDs/TV Movies, 2010 might see a poorly received spin-off, and then Stargate will be dead.
Overall, that’ll be, what… 13 years? Not bad, I guess.
I think I’d prefer to have a really thick, heavy-hitting back half to a season with an explosive conclusion than a set of “let’s milk this thing dry” DVDs, though.
I thought I’d give the site a new look, so I went searching for a new theme. I’m not entirely sold on this one yet, but I’m giving it a shot. There are some tweaks I definitely want to make, but it seems like a pretty decent theme. I’ve made a couple changes already.
If anyone has any thoughts they want to share, I’m all ears.
Loading ...