Concert Review:
Saw Rhett Miller (the lead singer of the Old97s) last night (11-20-2002). He kicked ass. Ran through all of his current album (The Instigator) and quite a few Old97s tunes. There's a trend in music right now to make 'radio friendly' cds for bands that are essentially 'live' bands. The most popular example of this I can think of is Counting Crows. Their cds tend to be a bit more 'clean' and layered while their live shows tend to just rip shit up. Well Rhett and the Old97s are no different. His solo cd at times sounds a little too pop-y and radio-ish while in concert he and his 3 bandmates just get up and destroy their instruments playing these pop songs. As for the show itself; I've been dying for years to get an Old97s show and just haven't been able to; so when I had the chance for the next best thing I took it. Tix were $15 and was among the best $15 I could spend on music (although that Puffy Ami Yumi show was right up there!). Rhett is a tall gangly fellow and to see him bop and flail around on stage is quite a site indeed; imagine a combination of Kurt Cobain and Pete Townsend with a dash of 60's soul. Oddly, the music sounds a bit like that as well. I've come to the conclusion that Rhett (even his writing for the 97s) is a natural progression from Buddy Holly (also from Texas). While Rhett's music is a little harder I've got to imagine Mr. Holly would approve. They're both songwriters with a gift for capturing the essence of life and love in a 2:00 minute song.
As for the show itself: throughout the show Rhett played his entire "The Instigator" cd (12 songs) and some Old97s songs from each of their 5 albums taking quite a bit from Fight Songs and Satellite Rides. In the middle of his set the band left the stage and Rhett just played a handful of 97s songs (including TimeBomb, which came off quite well) on his acoustic guitar. If and when he and/or the 97s are back in town; I will DEFINATELY have to check them out again.
---Jeff---
Friday, November 22, 2002
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/23727
It's Toledo related. Apparently some folks in T-Town were "uncapping" cable modems to get more bandwidth. Paul Block (owner of Buckeye Cablevision and The Toledo Blade and ABC5 among others) sent in the cavalry (the FBI) and is prosecuting these people to the full extent of the law. Some seem to be pretty harsh penalties for 'bandwidth theft.' Not really sure where I stand on this though; it seems to be a perfect case of over-reaction. Most cable companies just disconnect the users. But the law allows them to be criminally prosecuted. Further, what they are doing is technically stealing property (the bandwidth belongs to Cablevision). However, while they had access to much greater bandwidth, in reality they weren't realizing that benefit. So, one could argue that when they bought their subscription they just bought a right to use the bandwidth;if someone else wasn't using it, they had every right to it. There's considerable law against this for most analogies (water, power, etc.) but it could be argued that this is different because bandwidth isn't 'really' a limited resource like the other two. Further most of the situations that ARE analogous (water, power, etc) have 'pay for use' policies. You pay x/usage. I wouldn't be too surprised to see broadband companies go to this type of fee schedule (i.e., $.01/MB ~$1.00 for 100MB or about 1.00 for every 2 cds' worth of bandwidth you use). This type of schedule would make someone like me who uses a LOT of bandwidth pay more than someone like Erin who uses very little bandwidth (of course, that's not a good example because we both live in the same house); further it would SERIOUSLY impede the amount of illegal copying that goes on. You'd think twice before downloading that cd (while only $1.00 it's still cheaper than buying) or 20. The movie industry would love it. To download a DVD rip is usually around 1.5GB or about $15 under my fee schedule; it's cheaper just to BUY the damn thing. Right now, the more I download the more efficiently I'm using my bandwidth. The biggest downfall would be serious impediment to technology research; no one would provide streaming video because no one would for the service PLUS the bandwidth. Anyway. I got off topic, but I'm tired of typing now.
---Jeff---
It's Toledo related. Apparently some folks in T-Town were "uncapping" cable modems to get more bandwidth. Paul Block (owner of Buckeye Cablevision and The Toledo Blade and ABC5 among others) sent in the cavalry (the FBI) and is prosecuting these people to the full extent of the law. Some seem to be pretty harsh penalties for 'bandwidth theft.' Not really sure where I stand on this though; it seems to be a perfect case of over-reaction. Most cable companies just disconnect the users. But the law allows them to be criminally prosecuted. Further, what they are doing is technically stealing property (the bandwidth belongs to Cablevision). However, while they had access to much greater bandwidth, in reality they weren't realizing that benefit. So, one could argue that when they bought their subscription they just bought a right to use the bandwidth;if someone else wasn't using it, they had every right to it. There's considerable law against this for most analogies (water, power, etc.) but it could be argued that this is different because bandwidth isn't 'really' a limited resource like the other two. Further most of the situations that ARE analogous (water, power, etc) have 'pay for use' policies. You pay x/usage. I wouldn't be too surprised to see broadband companies go to this type of fee schedule (i.e., $.01/MB ~$1.00 for 100MB or about 1.00 for every 2 cds' worth of bandwidth you use). This type of schedule would make someone like me who uses a LOT of bandwidth pay more than someone like Erin who uses very little bandwidth (of course, that's not a good example because we both live in the same house); further it would SERIOUSLY impede the amount of illegal copying that goes on. You'd think twice before downloading that cd (while only $1.00 it's still cheaper than buying) or 20. The movie industry would love it. To download a DVD rip is usually around 1.5GB or about $15 under my fee schedule; it's cheaper just to BUY the damn thing. Right now, the more I download the more efficiently I'm using my bandwidth. The biggest downfall would be serious impediment to technology research; no one would provide streaming video because no one would for the service PLUS the bandwidth. Anyway. I got off topic, but I'm tired of typing now.
---Jeff---
Thursday, November 21, 2002
http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1121/1463950.html
First, ANOTHER baseball team in Montreal!? I think it's hilarious that Canada is starting up a Canadian Baseball League; gotta be pissing off Butt Selig to no end. We'll see where it goes. hope it does well.
Second, about Iverson I guess:
My general thoughts on feeling bad for the rich and famous is: I don't feel any worse for them than I do anyone else. I feel bad for anyone living Philly. Why? BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN PHILLY. But, beyond that, I'm not sure Iverson's really complaining about anything that he wouldn't complain about if he WEREN'T famous; but because he is famous there's someone there to write it down. Iverson's lifestyle, before and during pro basketball, is one of the streets; and if you live or associate with the street you either are, or feel as if you are, being repressed by 'The Man'. Allen, regardless of fame, would bitch about 'The Man.' That's what he does. I don't feel bad for him, just like I don't feel bad for anyone else who lives their life antagonizing police officers. I don't think Iverson's saying "feel bad for me, the press just won't leave me alone." (see Michael 'the hypocrit' Jordan for that: Which, by the way, I am loving EVERY MINUTE of) Iverson's saying "Damn The Man", and he's just using the press (a privilege and burden of fame) to say it, and I can respect that. Iverson's a street punk, always was, always will; I wouldn't read anything into what he says anymore than I would anything else some street punk has to say.
---Jeff---
First, ANOTHER baseball team in Montreal!? I think it's hilarious that Canada is starting up a Canadian Baseball League; gotta be pissing off Butt Selig to no end. We'll see where it goes. hope it does well.
Second, about Iverson I guess:
My general thoughts on feeling bad for the rich and famous is: I don't feel any worse for them than I do anyone else. I feel bad for anyone living Philly. Why? BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN PHILLY. But, beyond that, I'm not sure Iverson's really complaining about anything that he wouldn't complain about if he WEREN'T famous; but because he is famous there's someone there to write it down. Iverson's lifestyle, before and during pro basketball, is one of the streets; and if you live or associate with the street you either are, or feel as if you are, being repressed by 'The Man'. Allen, regardless of fame, would bitch about 'The Man.' That's what he does. I don't feel bad for him, just like I don't feel bad for anyone else who lives their life antagonizing police officers. I don't think Iverson's saying "feel bad for me, the press just won't leave me alone." (see Michael 'the hypocrit' Jordan for that: Which, by the way, I am loving EVERY MINUTE of) Iverson's saying "Damn The Man", and he's just using the press (a privilege and burden of fame) to say it, and I can respect that. Iverson's a street punk, always was, always will; I wouldn't read anything into what he says anymore than I would anything else some street punk has to say.
---Jeff---
Tuesday, November 12, 2002
Following is my essay I am submitting for a fellowship for the Intellectual Property Colloquium. It must be less than two pages, hence its brevity. Doubt it's of interest, but just in case:
Practically every area of IP law from gene patenting to music licensing to catching hackers influences every person in our global community in some capacity. One area that is particularly influential is software and its development. Today, and in the future, software is king; our cars, phones, TVs and refrigerators all operate on software of some kind. In this area, the one issue that IP law is just being presented with, even though it is far from a new concept, is open-source software. The concept that source code is by its very nature collaborative and should be freely distributed is by no means new; there are, and will continue to be, battles in the courts over the process of software development and access to information against issues of copyrightability, patentability and profitability.
Software development, by its very nature, is a collaborative and derivative effort. Every programmer when they are first starting learns the value of stealing code. Stealing code in the programmer’s world means looking at other’s code to learn how a program works. Take for example someone wishing to learn to program in HTML. The person wishing to learn to program in this language, before buying a book on How-To Program in HTML, before even looking at a website on How-To Program in HTML, would probably open a web browser, go to a website, right-click and choose ‘view source’. This person would then copy-and-paste and rearrange bits and pieces of code to see what happened. This act alone would, strictly speaking, make the person liable for copyright infringement. Of course, he probably could claim ‘fair use’, but why should the issue even be raised in the first place? All software development uses, in some form, this method of derivative creation.
More importantly, source code embodies the essence of idea and expression. When a programmer sets out to write a particular bit of software, ideally the end-result is the most efficient and practical method possible of achieving this goal. In copyright terms when a programmer has an idea, the very goal of the software is to be the simplest expression of that idea. Computer Associates Int’l v. Altai, Inc., the seminal case in this area, upheld the merger doctrine as it is applied to source code; while doing so, that court recognized that the copyright for software protects little more than the literal code itself from infringement. They found, rightly, that virtually every form of expression embodied in software-development is either a merger of idea or some method central to the nature of development (i.e., scenes-a-faire or public domain). In the language of other copyrights, it appeared that a software copyright was extremely thin.
However, through the practical operation of the thin copyright and its attendant End-User Licensing Agreements (“EULA”) and compiled nature, the idea ends up being copyrighted as well. If programmers wish to build upon the idea embodied in a piece of software, they are prohibited from doing so unless they re-develop the entire work from scratch only to add a tiny modification. EULAs often prevent reverse engineering software, and the compiled nature of the code makes de-compiling difficult and, often, unreliable rendering access to the idea impossible.
In many respects, protecting software is much closer to patent than copyright; it is inherently functional and highly technical. The benefits of moving software into the patent world would eliminate many of the issues found in copyright. This is not to say that patenting software would not cause problems as well; it certainly has its own albatross’. However, the primary benefit of a move to patent protection would be the elimination of the public harm while providing the same incentive to create (protection of the literal code).
Perhaps a move not quite so drastic would work, but a change is needed; the public harms of the copyright paradigm far outweigh the private benefits. As consumers and users of software, we should not be controlled in the pursuit of our own education. To developers, the primary source of creation, the work upon which to derive another useful work, is removed from their grasp. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Free Software Foundation (GNU Project) are just two of the organizations that are helping to solve these important issues. While they have made some strides, these issues are far from settled and are only starting to be recognized by our courts.
Practically every area of IP law from gene patenting to music licensing to catching hackers influences every person in our global community in some capacity. One area that is particularly influential is software and its development. Today, and in the future, software is king; our cars, phones, TVs and refrigerators all operate on software of some kind. In this area, the one issue that IP law is just being presented with, even though it is far from a new concept, is open-source software. The concept that source code is by its very nature collaborative and should be freely distributed is by no means new; there are, and will continue to be, battles in the courts over the process of software development and access to information against issues of copyrightability, patentability and profitability.
Software development, by its very nature, is a collaborative and derivative effort. Every programmer when they are first starting learns the value of stealing code. Stealing code in the programmer’s world means looking at other’s code to learn how a program works. Take for example someone wishing to learn to program in HTML. The person wishing to learn to program in this language, before buying a book on How-To Program in HTML, before even looking at a website on How-To Program in HTML, would probably open a web browser, go to a website, right-click and choose ‘view source’. This person would then copy-and-paste and rearrange bits and pieces of code to see what happened. This act alone would, strictly speaking, make the person liable for copyright infringement. Of course, he probably could claim ‘fair use’, but why should the issue even be raised in the first place? All software development uses, in some form, this method of derivative creation.
More importantly, source code embodies the essence of idea and expression. When a programmer sets out to write a particular bit of software, ideally the end-result is the most efficient and practical method possible of achieving this goal. In copyright terms when a programmer has an idea, the very goal of the software is to be the simplest expression of that idea. Computer Associates Int’l v. Altai, Inc., the seminal case in this area, upheld the merger doctrine as it is applied to source code; while doing so, that court recognized that the copyright for software protects little more than the literal code itself from infringement. They found, rightly, that virtually every form of expression embodied in software-development is either a merger of idea or some method central to the nature of development (i.e., scenes-a-faire or public domain). In the language of other copyrights, it appeared that a software copyright was extremely thin.
However, through the practical operation of the thin copyright and its attendant End-User Licensing Agreements (“EULA”) and compiled nature, the idea ends up being copyrighted as well. If programmers wish to build upon the idea embodied in a piece of software, they are prohibited from doing so unless they re-develop the entire work from scratch only to add a tiny modification. EULAs often prevent reverse engineering software, and the compiled nature of the code makes de-compiling difficult and, often, unreliable rendering access to the idea impossible.
In many respects, protecting software is much closer to patent than copyright; it is inherently functional and highly technical. The benefits of moving software into the patent world would eliminate many of the issues found in copyright. This is not to say that patenting software would not cause problems as well; it certainly has its own albatross’. However, the primary benefit of a move to patent protection would be the elimination of the public harm while providing the same incentive to create (protection of the literal code).
Perhaps a move not quite so drastic would work, but a change is needed; the public harms of the copyright paradigm far outweigh the private benefits. As consumers and users of software, we should not be controlled in the pursuit of our own education. To developers, the primary source of creation, the work upon which to derive another useful work, is removed from their grasp. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Free Software Foundation (GNU Project) are just two of the organizations that are helping to solve these important issues. While they have made some strides, these issues are far from settled and are only starting to be recognized by our courts.
As a disclaimer, I only copy the response because think the author says it better than I possibly could; I'm copying the NYTimes article because the NYT is a bastard about copyright protection and it gives me satisfaction to copy from them. I'm copying an interesting article and NYTimes and response from www.velvetrope.com:
This Generation Gap is 38 Million Strong
By DANNY HAKIM
DETROIT: ONCE every marketer's sweetheart, Generation X is finding itself lost in the shadow of two generational giants. This became clear during a recent speech by Dieter Zetsche, the chief executive of the Chrysler Group.
"The next decade will include the coming of age of the most promising new generation of buyers since the baby boomers," Mr. Zetsche proclaimed to a conference hall full of industry executives, analysts and journalists.
On projection screens behind him, a chart appeared with three bars. A tall blue bar on the right side represented the baby boomers — from 38 to 57 years old and 82 million strong, by Chrysler's calculation. Boomers, Mr. Zetsche's chart said, are motivated by comfort, luxury and safety when they buy a car.
On the chart's left side was a bright orange bar representing millennials, also known as Generation Y, the offspring of the boomers. From 6 to 25 years old, Generation Y numbers about 78 million. They want technological gadgets in their cars and an ability to connect to the Internet on the road, and they are loyal to brands.
In the middle of the chart was a faded gray bar, a short shadow that represented the 38 million members of Generation X, from 26 to 37 years old in Chrysler's analysis. The company hadn't bothered to forecast their tastes at all.
Many businesses define generations by statistical peaks and troughs, though there are different schools of thought on just where one generation starts and another begins.
A decade ago, youth-obsessed marketers were riveted on Generation X. Television shows and movies explored its trials ("Beverly Hills 90210," "Reality Bites"), while the recording industry poured venture capital into Seattle grunge rock, the signature sound of a generation. The reigning aesthetic, seen in perfumes like cKone and Gap clothes, was unisex and casual.
But Gen X's time as a marketing darling was short-lived.
"They go directly from boomers to Y's," said Ann A. Fishman, president of Generational Targeted Marketing, a consulting firm. "The reason is not because of numbers. It's because Generation X is harder to understand."
Neil Howe, a historian who has written on both Gen X and Gen Y (he defines the latter as everyone born since 1982), said Gen X was difficult to target because it never liked being categorized as a troop of goateed slackers in the first place.
"It's a generation that celebrates its diversity and individuality," he said. "So that's one huge strike against X-er marketing. It's easier to explicitly target millennials than Gen X. They think they have a great future and a special role in the future of this country, because of the way they were raised."
Boomers, Ms. Fishman said, had a favorable economic and historical ride, and Generation Y is made up of bull-market babies. That makes both groups generally more optimistic and brand loyal, even now.
X'ers are less so. Yes, they grew up during Ronald Reagan's "morning in America." But they also came of age at a time when corporations downsized, when crack made the drug culture increasingly dangerous, when suddenly sex could kill you.
As a generation they have trouble trusting network news, the main political parties and many businesses that try to court them, Ms. Fishman says. Some businesses no longer bother.
"Generation X is the first truly tough generation to sell to," said Charlene Stern, a senior vice president at NewGround, a bank services firm with headquarters in Chicago. "They don't give you more than a second to slice through and earn your keep."
Not every industry is specifically Gen-X-averse. Many companies, like soda makers, are perpetually focused on youth because that's where their consumer base lies.
For Chrysler, the focus on Gen Y has as much to do with what it sees as an industrywide mishandling of the boomer generation, which turned to foreign brands like Toyota and BMW, as it does with an inability to reach Gen Xers.
"Detroit didn't do a very good job of connecting with the baby boom," said Jeff Bell, marketing chief for Chrysler's Jeep. "When we see this huge group building, Gen Y, we say never again. It's not a slight to Generation X. We do wish to sell products today. But we have to be ready for the next big boom."
Still, said Richard Thau, the president of Third Millennium, a nonpartisan Gen X research organization, giving up on reaching his generation is "like driving around Europe and getting to the border of a country where you don't have a map and turning around because you don't want to find one."
Then again, what does it matter?
"Gen Xers don't drive cars," he added. "We only pedal to work, right?"
And the response, by Spookypants, from Brooklyn, NY:
Interesting article...A thought I had...I think the reason Gen Xer's are a tough nut to crack is because unlike BabyBoomers (Teens in the 50-60's, very optimistic, saw America as Nixon did) and Gen Y (Spoiled brats who've had a metric assload handed to them, reared on Teen Pop and the Net) we have seen tough times. We've seen how hard jobs are to come by not once but twice in our professional post-university lives.
We sat there and heard the last "Republican guard" (Reagan and Bush Sr.) lie to us with smiles on their faces (Iran-Contra, No new taxes) not to mention what the article listed (Crack, AIDS). Don't even get me started about 80's pop culture.
And now, we see the new generation (wh)Y and what they expect and respond to. It's sickening, they are lead by the nose by major corporations and are completely oblivious, or don't care, about the consequences.
The sad part is that Gen X sorta stood for something to it's members, much like Hippie's in the 60's, but we will be forgotten because we don't buy into bulls*it as easily and are hard to market to. Awww, poor marketers, can't do it if it isn't easy. OR can't do it period beacuse they don't have the goods.
My new mantra: Never trust anyone over 45 or under 26.
No wonder Winnona's having such grief...
###End rant###
This Generation Gap is 38 Million Strong
By DANNY HAKIM
DETROIT: ONCE every marketer's sweetheart, Generation X is finding itself lost in the shadow of two generational giants. This became clear during a recent speech by Dieter Zetsche, the chief executive of the Chrysler Group.
"The next decade will include the coming of age of the most promising new generation of buyers since the baby boomers," Mr. Zetsche proclaimed to a conference hall full of industry executives, analysts and journalists.
On projection screens behind him, a chart appeared with three bars. A tall blue bar on the right side represented the baby boomers — from 38 to 57 years old and 82 million strong, by Chrysler's calculation. Boomers, Mr. Zetsche's chart said, are motivated by comfort, luxury and safety when they buy a car.
On the chart's left side was a bright orange bar representing millennials, also known as Generation Y, the offspring of the boomers. From 6 to 25 years old, Generation Y numbers about 78 million. They want technological gadgets in their cars and an ability to connect to the Internet on the road, and they are loyal to brands.
In the middle of the chart was a faded gray bar, a short shadow that represented the 38 million members of Generation X, from 26 to 37 years old in Chrysler's analysis. The company hadn't bothered to forecast their tastes at all.
Many businesses define generations by statistical peaks and troughs, though there are different schools of thought on just where one generation starts and another begins.
A decade ago, youth-obsessed marketers were riveted on Generation X. Television shows and movies explored its trials ("Beverly Hills 90210," "Reality Bites"), while the recording industry poured venture capital into Seattle grunge rock, the signature sound of a generation. The reigning aesthetic, seen in perfumes like cKone and Gap clothes, was unisex and casual.
But Gen X's time as a marketing darling was short-lived.
"They go directly from boomers to Y's," said Ann A. Fishman, president of Generational Targeted Marketing, a consulting firm. "The reason is not because of numbers. It's because Generation X is harder to understand."
Neil Howe, a historian who has written on both Gen X and Gen Y (he defines the latter as everyone born since 1982), said Gen X was difficult to target because it never liked being categorized as a troop of goateed slackers in the first place.
"It's a generation that celebrates its diversity and individuality," he said. "So that's one huge strike against X-er marketing. It's easier to explicitly target millennials than Gen X. They think they have a great future and a special role in the future of this country, because of the way they were raised."
Boomers, Ms. Fishman said, had a favorable economic and historical ride, and Generation Y is made up of bull-market babies. That makes both groups generally more optimistic and brand loyal, even now.
X'ers are less so. Yes, they grew up during Ronald Reagan's "morning in America." But they also came of age at a time when corporations downsized, when crack made the drug culture increasingly dangerous, when suddenly sex could kill you.
As a generation they have trouble trusting network news, the main political parties and many businesses that try to court them, Ms. Fishman says. Some businesses no longer bother.
"Generation X is the first truly tough generation to sell to," said Charlene Stern, a senior vice president at NewGround, a bank services firm with headquarters in Chicago. "They don't give you more than a second to slice through and earn your keep."
Not every industry is specifically Gen-X-averse. Many companies, like soda makers, are perpetually focused on youth because that's where their consumer base lies.
For Chrysler, the focus on Gen Y has as much to do with what it sees as an industrywide mishandling of the boomer generation, which turned to foreign brands like Toyota and BMW, as it does with an inability to reach Gen Xers.
"Detroit didn't do a very good job of connecting with the baby boom," said Jeff Bell, marketing chief for Chrysler's Jeep. "When we see this huge group building, Gen Y, we say never again. It's not a slight to Generation X. We do wish to sell products today. But we have to be ready for the next big boom."
Still, said Richard Thau, the president of Third Millennium, a nonpartisan Gen X research organization, giving up on reaching his generation is "like driving around Europe and getting to the border of a country where you don't have a map and turning around because you don't want to find one."
Then again, what does it matter?
"Gen Xers don't drive cars," he added. "We only pedal to work, right?"
And the response, by Spookypants, from Brooklyn, NY:
Interesting article...A thought I had...I think the reason Gen Xer's are a tough nut to crack is because unlike BabyBoomers (Teens in the 50-60's, very optimistic, saw America as Nixon did) and Gen Y (Spoiled brats who've had a metric assload handed to them, reared on Teen Pop and the Net) we have seen tough times. We've seen how hard jobs are to come by not once but twice in our professional post-university lives.
We sat there and heard the last "Republican guard" (Reagan and Bush Sr.) lie to us with smiles on their faces (Iran-Contra, No new taxes) not to mention what the article listed (Crack, AIDS). Don't even get me started about 80's pop culture.
And now, we see the new generation (wh)Y and what they expect and respond to. It's sickening, they are lead by the nose by major corporations and are completely oblivious, or don't care, about the consequences.
The sad part is that Gen X sorta stood for something to it's members, much like Hippie's in the 60's, but we will be forgotten because we don't buy into bulls*it as easily and are hard to market to. Awww, poor marketers, can't do it if it isn't easy. OR can't do it period beacuse they don't have the goods.
My new mantra: Never trust anyone over 45 or under 26.
No wonder Winnona's having such grief...
###End rant###
Monday, November 11, 2002
To answer the 'grunge' thing; I can't fathom that by the year 1992 Grunge was considered 'dead'. The 10 major bands of the grunge movement were (in order of 'importance'):
1. Nirvana: had released 3 albums by 1992 (bleach, nevermind and incesticide); In Utero and their UnPlugged didn't come until 1993/94. By 1995 they were (no pun intended) dead
2. The Pixies: Without The Pixies grunge would never have existed. If you need proof, listen to "Doolittle". They broke up in 1992; but that's saying that grunge died when the PARENTS of grunge died. This would be like saying that Prog Rock died when Peter Gabriel left Genesis. Absolute rubbish.
3. Radiohead: Perhaps the one band to escape grunge unharmed. The reason is, that unlike other bands they were able to disguise their sloppy rock-and-roll. But they were just starting in 1992 and in fact at that point were just 'one hit wonders'.
4. Pearl Jam: By 1992 had just release 1 album, the seminal Ten; they still had a whole career in front of them and although one could argue they left grunge for the pastures of Rock-and-Roll only means that they learned how to play their instruments.
5. Rage Against The Machine: Released one of the most important albums of the 90s in 1992 (Rage Against the Machine) and went another 8 years before breaking up.
6. Soundgarden: Had released 5 albums by 1992 with their most identifiable album (Superunknown) - perhaps the quintessential grunge album - still 2 years away.
7. Mudhoney: The most 'underrated' of the Seattle bands; they had released 4 albums by 1992 and are still selling out shows. While they never made it big, they're probably just as responsible for kids starting bands as Nirvana if you want to talk sheer numbers.
8. Alice in Chains: Released Dirt in 1992. If you sense a pattern here it's because almost every band RELEASED an album in 1992; but keep in mind grunge is a combination of punk and rock-and-roll; the punk genre is KNOWN for its prolific (if not high-quality) album releases with bands not-uncommonly releasing 2 albums a year.
9. Stone Temple Pilots: released 'core' in 1992; it took 2 more years for people to realize the album wasn't by Pearl Jam. Regardless, it seems counter-intuitive that all of these grunge bands who were just STARTING signaled the DEATH of a genre.
10. REM: while they released 'automatic for the people' in 1992; in 1994 they released Monster, signalling that grunge had reached the pop-masses. No longer was grunge for your pissed-off malcontents, it was also for your arty-malcontents and female-malcontents and everyone else. To this day, all people know of the phrase "What's the frequency, Kenneth" was that REM wrote a song of that name.
Given the longevity of these bands on a whole, I find it odd that the genre they defined would be called a fad. If you want to pick a year that signalled the end of grunge I would argue that 1995, the first full year without Nivana is the year to choose.
To answer the socio-economic question, I would think that there absolutely is. When times are good, the music is forced on you; people have unlimited disposable income and are willing to dole it out to the latest ms. thing that comes along; when times get rough the chaff separates from the wheat as people have to pick and choose which bands are worthy of their money and deep inside while people want to see Brittney, they don't want to pay any 'real' money for it, because they know it isn't any good.
Well, I've gone on much longer than anticipated and probably short-shrifted the last argument because I think it's a question worth looking at. Just not today.
---Jeff---
1. Nirvana: had released 3 albums by 1992 (bleach, nevermind and incesticide); In Utero and their UnPlugged didn't come until 1993/94. By 1995 they were (no pun intended) dead
2. The Pixies: Without The Pixies grunge would never have existed. If you need proof, listen to "Doolittle". They broke up in 1992; but that's saying that grunge died when the PARENTS of grunge died. This would be like saying that Prog Rock died when Peter Gabriel left Genesis. Absolute rubbish.
3. Radiohead: Perhaps the one band to escape grunge unharmed. The reason is, that unlike other bands they were able to disguise their sloppy rock-and-roll. But they were just starting in 1992 and in fact at that point were just 'one hit wonders'.
4. Pearl Jam: By 1992 had just release 1 album, the seminal Ten; they still had a whole career in front of them and although one could argue they left grunge for the pastures of Rock-and-Roll only means that they learned how to play their instruments.
5. Rage Against The Machine: Released one of the most important albums of the 90s in 1992 (Rage Against the Machine) and went another 8 years before breaking up.
6. Soundgarden: Had released 5 albums by 1992 with their most identifiable album (Superunknown) - perhaps the quintessential grunge album - still 2 years away.
7. Mudhoney: The most 'underrated' of the Seattle bands; they had released 4 albums by 1992 and are still selling out shows. While they never made it big, they're probably just as responsible for kids starting bands as Nirvana if you want to talk sheer numbers.
8. Alice in Chains: Released Dirt in 1992. If you sense a pattern here it's because almost every band RELEASED an album in 1992; but keep in mind grunge is a combination of punk and rock-and-roll; the punk genre is KNOWN for its prolific (if not high-quality) album releases with bands not-uncommonly releasing 2 albums a year.
9. Stone Temple Pilots: released 'core' in 1992; it took 2 more years for people to realize the album wasn't by Pearl Jam. Regardless, it seems counter-intuitive that all of these grunge bands who were just STARTING signaled the DEATH of a genre.
10. REM: while they released 'automatic for the people' in 1992; in 1994 they released Monster, signalling that grunge had reached the pop-masses. No longer was grunge for your pissed-off malcontents, it was also for your arty-malcontents and female-malcontents and everyone else. To this day, all people know of the phrase "What's the frequency, Kenneth" was that REM wrote a song of that name.
Given the longevity of these bands on a whole, I find it odd that the genre they defined would be called a fad. If you want to pick a year that signalled the end of grunge I would argue that 1995, the first full year without Nivana is the year to choose.
To answer the socio-economic question, I would think that there absolutely is. When times are good, the music is forced on you; people have unlimited disposable income and are willing to dole it out to the latest ms. thing that comes along; when times get rough the chaff separates from the wheat as people have to pick and choose which bands are worthy of their money and deep inside while people want to see Brittney, they don't want to pay any 'real' money for it, because they know it isn't any good.
Well, I've gone on much longer than anticipated and probably short-shrifted the last argument because I think it's a question worth looking at. Just not today.
---Jeff---
Friday, November 08, 2002
Two things, both relating to everyone's (or at least everyone from Ohio) favorite whipping-post state, Michigan.
First, I am thrilled and ecstatic to see University of Michigan basketball going down in flames. In the early 90s when "C-Web", et al were there it was hard to watch SportsCenter (let alone local news) without seeing someone from the Michigan basketball team bragging about being the greatest collection of basketball players in college basketball history. It's debateable, the truth of that statement; they were a very good team. But, it's also easy to see why there was so much animosity towards them. I have to admit that my greatest moment in college sports history is NOT seeing Christian Laetner sink the winning the shot against Kentucky; it was seeing Chris Webber call a timeout in the NCAA finals with 2 (9?) seconds left only to find out they didn't have any timeouts remaining. ESPN Classic could show that over and over and I would never get bored; maybe do a 'Behind the Scenes' like they did with Christian Laetner's shot; THAT I would watch. This whole 'scandal' is only unfortunate in that it doesn't show that they were a worse team than originally thought; it only shows that they were a better paid team than originally thought. I like that the NCAA lets teams sanction themselves; I think it forces schools to be creative. All the schools have seen what the NCAA imposes (Miami, Arkansas, etc. I'm looking in YOUR direction) and they'd rather be strict and creative themselves than have to give up recruiting for a decade or any of the other sanctions that the NCAA might impose.
Second, I admit I have not yet seen the movie (I plan to this weekend), but I have a feeling that this whole '8 Mile' thing is just a big commercial for Eminem. Companies, especially companies charged with marketing someone 'anti-corporate' like Eminem, need to find a way to get people to buy their product and let's be honest, the RIAA wants to see people buying more CDs. Consumers are becoming more jaded and are paying less attention to traditional advertising means (billboards, commercials, etc.); partly because, I think, those 'traditional means' have become so pervasive. You can't 10 feet without seeing 800 signs urging to buy some 'hip' new product; eventually rather than waste your time sorting out the good from the bad, you ignore them all and buy what you want. The problem is that most companies don't want you 'buying' what you want because you end going to the store and buying some 'local' brand over the nationally-available product that is spending (wasting?) their money advertising to you. As a result, companies have resorted to product placement to sell well-known products by putting them in context; if you see James Bond using a Sony (BMW, Mercedes, Astin Martin, etc.) you want a Sony because James Bond is cool and he can do cool things with his cool product. You go out and buy it; of course, you have to buy the top-of-the-line one because the intro products don't do what James Bond can do with them. This type of advertising is much more lucrative and effective for everyone involved; the movie/tv studios get to charge more, the manufacturer gets exclusive advertising for a full hour of your time and the consumer gets to see the product in use. Many marketing people seem to think this is the wave of the marketing future; jaded consumers need to be advertised to more subtly and by attaching a product to a person it allows the manufacturer to optimally position their product. If they want white, males with lots of disposable income and discerning taste they attach to James Bond, if they want black, males with strong family values and a strong sense of race they attach to Damon Wayans, etc. It's not stereotyping, it's marketing, these are the majority markets and if the manufacturer wants their product in front of that eyeball they can either run a commercial during the show and hope you didn't get up to go to the bathroom or they can pay for product placement and just have the person/character use their product. So, where is all this going and what does it have to do with "8 Mile"? Well, my 'jaded consumer' outlook tells me that even Eminem can only support so many albums (without touring, which he - or any rapper - does very little of) before people stop buying them. This has traditionally been a problem with Rap music; it's a very fickle (note: not discerning!) market whose tastes and attitudes change quickly. Sustaining selling-power over 3 albums is difficult; Puffy couldn't do it, Jay-Z couldn't do, Tupac had trouble doing it, and those are just some of the black rappers. Music stars, have a history of using film to exploit themselves; The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Yes, Brittney Spears have all done it to some extent (successfully or not) or another. Is "8 Mile" just a case of placing the product at the center of the film?
---Jeff---
First, I am thrilled and ecstatic to see University of Michigan basketball going down in flames. In the early 90s when "C-Web", et al were there it was hard to watch SportsCenter (let alone local news) without seeing someone from the Michigan basketball team bragging about being the greatest collection of basketball players in college basketball history. It's debateable, the truth of that statement; they were a very good team. But, it's also easy to see why there was so much animosity towards them. I have to admit that my greatest moment in college sports history is NOT seeing Christian Laetner sink the winning the shot against Kentucky; it was seeing Chris Webber call a timeout in the NCAA finals with 2 (9?) seconds left only to find out they didn't have any timeouts remaining. ESPN Classic could show that over and over and I would never get bored; maybe do a 'Behind the Scenes' like they did with Christian Laetner's shot; THAT I would watch. This whole 'scandal' is only unfortunate in that it doesn't show that they were a worse team than originally thought; it only shows that they were a better paid team than originally thought. I like that the NCAA lets teams sanction themselves; I think it forces schools to be creative. All the schools have seen what the NCAA imposes (Miami, Arkansas, etc. I'm looking in YOUR direction) and they'd rather be strict and creative themselves than have to give up recruiting for a decade or any of the other sanctions that the NCAA might impose.
Second, I admit I have not yet seen the movie (I plan to this weekend), but I have a feeling that this whole '8 Mile' thing is just a big commercial for Eminem. Companies, especially companies charged with marketing someone 'anti-corporate' like Eminem, need to find a way to get people to buy their product and let's be honest, the RIAA wants to see people buying more CDs. Consumers are becoming more jaded and are paying less attention to traditional advertising means (billboards, commercials, etc.); partly because, I think, those 'traditional means' have become so pervasive. You can't 10 feet without seeing 800 signs urging to buy some 'hip' new product; eventually rather than waste your time sorting out the good from the bad, you ignore them all and buy what you want. The problem is that most companies don't want you 'buying' what you want because you end going to the store and buying some 'local' brand over the nationally-available product that is spending (wasting?) their money advertising to you. As a result, companies have resorted to product placement to sell well-known products by putting them in context; if you see James Bond using a Sony (BMW, Mercedes, Astin Martin, etc.) you want a Sony because James Bond is cool and he can do cool things with his cool product. You go out and buy it; of course, you have to buy the top-of-the-line one because the intro products don't do what James Bond can do with them. This type of advertising is much more lucrative and effective for everyone involved; the movie/tv studios get to charge more, the manufacturer gets exclusive advertising for a full hour of your time and the consumer gets to see the product in use. Many marketing people seem to think this is the wave of the marketing future; jaded consumers need to be advertised to more subtly and by attaching a product to a person it allows the manufacturer to optimally position their product. If they want white, males with lots of disposable income and discerning taste they attach to James Bond, if they want black, males with strong family values and a strong sense of race they attach to Damon Wayans, etc. It's not stereotyping, it's marketing, these are the majority markets and if the manufacturer wants their product in front of that eyeball they can either run a commercial during the show and hope you didn't get up to go to the bathroom or they can pay for product placement and just have the person/character use their product. So, where is all this going and what does it have to do with "8 Mile"? Well, my 'jaded consumer' outlook tells me that even Eminem can only support so many albums (without touring, which he - or any rapper - does very little of) before people stop buying them. This has traditionally been a problem with Rap music; it's a very fickle (note: not discerning!) market whose tastes and attitudes change quickly. Sustaining selling-power over 3 albums is difficult; Puffy couldn't do it, Jay-Z couldn't do, Tupac had trouble doing it, and those are just some of the black rappers. Music stars, have a history of using film to exploit themselves; The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Yes, Brittney Spears have all done it to some extent (successfully or not) or another. Is "8 Mile" just a case of placing the product at the center of the film?
---Jeff---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)