483 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
When Moby gets the manic-atmosphere of the club scene right, Last Night is a solid album. Yet, his foray into tranquility toward the album’s latter half, things slow down a bit too much. This leaves the album feeling much like a night out: Some things you’d like to remember, others you can’t wait to forget.
When the WB and UPN combined to create the CW network just two years ago, I was optimistic. While dissolving of the WB — mostly owned by Time Warner — and UPN — owned by The CBS Corporation — was a disappointment because the two did offer above-average programming most of the time, merging seemed genius because the CW would have the best of both worlds on its airwaves.\nYet less than two years into the CW’s broadcast history, the network has not improved itself one iota, and in fact, is probably in a worse place now than either the WB or UPN were before the merger. And although there are a few factors the CW can’t control, most of their own missteps have led them here.\nFirst of all, the CW cannot really be blamed for their anemically awful ratings. For the period of March 24 through March 30, the CW averaged 2.3 million viewers, more than 5 million less than the worst “big” network, NBC. They should be given a pass for being a second-year network and having a target demographic of 18-34 year olds, even if most of their shows did a bit better on their previous networks.\nHowever, a fair number of the decisions the CW has made regarding programming and scheduling have soured its chances of becoming a respected network. The executives started off on the wrong foot in 2006 by not bringing relatively popular shows “Everwood” and “Blue Collar TV” over and passing on the excellent “Aquaman” pilot from “Smallville” executive producers Al Gough and Miles Millar. Then they followed those classic decisions by not picking up “Invasion” after ABC cancelled it, even after flirting with the idea for a while and then canceling cult favorite and critical darling “Veronica Mars.” \nEven with all of those decisions enraging potential fans, the CW still had a chance to turn it all around coming into the 2007-2008 TV season. Three of its new scripted shows, “Reaper,” “Gossip Girl” and “Aliens in America” were considered by many pundits to be some of the best in the new crop of programs. \nBut of course, the network’s shoddy scheduling format put “Reaper” all over the place and “Aliens in America” is as good as cancelled. “Gossip Girl” is the only one of those shows, all of which are high-quality, that is guaranteed to make it to a second season, and only because it appeals to enough teen girls. \nMuch worse, the CW’s best scripted assets are “Smallville” and “Supernatural,” yet neither gets as much plugging as does junk like “One Tree Hill” and reality shows. Instead, both are placed on Thursday nights, the hardest timeslot during the week, where they struggle to get viewers. And although it’s good to see them holding their own against the major networks, putting one of them on another night would benefit the CW tremendously. \nThe CW is never going to move out of fifth place, but by making continuously dreadful judgments about its programming and schedule, it’s guaranteeing that the margin between it and the major networks will only grow. It almost makes you wish for the days of Michigan J. Frog and the Dawson.
Chances are that if you aren’t considered “emo” – a term that has mutated so much over the past few years – at least a part of you can’t help but laugh at those who are. \nYet as funny as it may be to chuckle at 14 year olds loitering near Hot Topic, emo haters in Mexico are taking things past flaming MySpace and to a whole new level. Over the past month, groups have been prowling the streets looking for any emos so they can get rid of them through violent means, and they even have the support of a television personality. \nAs much as emo kids are hated here, it’s never gotten to the point of mass-organized beat-downs. Aside from asking the obvious “What the heck?” question, these altercations signify that emo culture is out of control. As an individual who’s maneuvered in and out of the emo label, I’m shocked to even see this “culture” turn into almost another race of people. Inside the walls of secondary school, I comprehended the sharp distinctions of group dynamics. But in the real world, I would have never thought emo kids would be the subject of such scorn aside from pity or laughter.\nAll the anti-emo rhetoric in Mexico has stirred up another sub-sect of this oddity. “Scene kids” – those who have an even more ridiculous appearance featuring highly-teased hair, hundreds of bracelets, pounds of eyeliner and unironicly loud T-shirts – are now using their primary means of communication (MySpace) to distinguish themselves from emos.\nObviously, sub-cultures are part of our world, but why are people letting the groups battle it out when almost all of them are still of middle-school age? The ever-growing networking possibilities of adolescents worldwide need to be curbed. Kids are now in a level of supposed hyper-development, in which the trends they motor through now have more outlets for expression. There has to be a point where someone (read: parents) steps in to tell them that they’re all the same, no matter what their Buzznet or what the “How to Be a ____” wikiHow they constantly visit says. \nAs a die-hard fan of the music that used to be labeled emo, a title that I’m not sure even fits anymore with all this ruckus, I can’t help but wonder how we made it to this point. Three years ago, most of the bands that played music that supposedly catered to these groups just played shows.\nBut once a few gained some popularity in the mainstream, where current emo/scene kids first heard the bands, everyone realized that because all the music sounds the same, whoever had the hippest image would make it. As it was marketed more to kids with their parents’ dough, these heinous trends only exploded further. \nThere’s a lot of blame to be passed around for this unbelievable situation – parents, technology, Pete Wentz – but some of it has to fall back on the scene itself. And it’s time for scene heroes such as Wentz to step up and implore kids to chill out. Of course, that’s just what they need – something else to cry about.
Panic! At The Disco burst into the mainstream in 2006 with heaps of off-the-wall pop songs and “guyliner.
Virtually unknown last year, Jim Sturgess quickly gained some worldwide popularity due to his performance in the Beatles-inspired musical “Across The Universe.”
While their less talented peers have found success, The Matches’ more complicated approach has left them without a ticket on the emo gravy train.
By now, almost everyone knows that the music industry is in trouble. In just a few years, the enterprise has shrunk considerably, from $15 billion in 1999 to $11 billion now. Record sales have declined 25 percent since 2000, and the ten top-selling albums in the U.S. sold a combined 60 million copies that year. In 2006, the top ten sold a paltry 25 million.\nMost point to a crucial event that became the catalyst for this decline: Napster. \nYet while Napster set the music world on fire, the industry’s reactions to it did nothing to put it out, and in fact, probably indirectly fueled it. Nine years later, the music industry doesn’t really have anyone to blame but itself. \nAfter Napster burst onto the scene, no one can blame the industry for not knowing how to handle it; at that point, no one had a clue that it was going to revolutionize the way Generation Y would use the Internet or that it would lead to Kazaa, Morpheus or LimeWire. But once Napster was axed and Metallica’s Lars Ulrich was whining in a court room, the industry probably thought it had the fad squashed. \nBut as the peer-to-peer and illegal sharing networks continued to grow at rapid rates, the industry did nothing. Instead of taking the initiative, it sat back until third parties like Apple had to figure it out for them. Meanwhile, the Recording Industry Association of America has decided to terrorize users — primarily college kids — on an individual basis, wasting time and resources that it could’ve been using to think up fresh ideas. \nThey’ve failed to see that illegal sharing probably can’t be stopped, as 1 billion songs are traded on peer-to-peers each month. But people are enjoying downloading legally, too — 4 billion tracks have been downloaded on iTunes in five years — and the industry braintrust has yet to cook up good ideas to get the people who love music enough to pay for it to do so. \nLuckily for all the industry insiders reading this, I have a few simple solutions:\nActively use online arenas to your advantage. Most importantly, labels must pay attention to “leaks” of records and how to combat them. Labels should offer online pre-order deals that include a stipulation where as soon as an album illegally leaks all over the Internet, those that have pre-ordered it legally would be given digital copies or have their hard copy shipped to them immediately. Then not only would consumers still get the album early, but they’d also have a high quality, legal version of it.\nBe patient with your acts. Sales suck, but it’s ignorant to cut an act after one struggling album. There must be some time to cultivate the act and let the fan base grow, etc. Use the Internet to promote them for next-to-nothing — something indie labels do, but majors don’t — and get them on any tour possible. Make them work.\nAll this sounds like something a smart person would’ve told music moguls in 2002, but they’ve still ignored it for the most part. \nEveryone has a unique theory on the industry’s woes. Blender magazine says it’s because of the death of the CD single, Chuck Klosterman blames a shoddy economy. At this point, we’re all right.
While “Heroes” gained mainstream popularity and “LOST” captured the minds of intelligent viewers, the most consistent high-quality genre show on television found a home on the lowly Sci Fi Channel.
There was a time when it could have been argued that Martin Lawrence was legitimately funny.
Bloomington’s own eclectic act Murder By Death has risen through the ranks of music fairly quickly over the past five years.
The newspaper is dead. Or at least dying a slow, excruciating death that should come to fruition within the next decade, as the Internet and other alternative outlets of media take over.\nThat’s the story we’ve been fed since the 1990s, but I always had trouble believing it – mostly because newspapers have absorbed all the onslaughts over the years. They survived radio. They survived television. \nYet, with the information released in the annual State of the News Media report by the Project For Excellence in Journalism, I think all the warnings are finally getting to me. To put it softly, the future looks terribly bleak.\nConsider the following from the report: in 2007, newspaper circulation dropped 2.5 percent, company earnings were down 10 percent, newspaper company stocks took huge hits – Gannet lost 35 percent of its value, McClatchy lost more than 70 percent – and advertising revenues went down 7 percent. And don’t forget more than 750 employees were axed in just the last month at major papers such as The New York Times.\nThe only good news is coming from the online divisions. Web sites have improved tremendously, which has led to a 3.7 percent increase in online readers. But even the good news comes with a smack in the face with a sock full of nickels. Ad revenue online only increased 20 percent last year – whereas it had been increasing at a 30 percent per-year rate in recent years – and only 7 percent of total revenue is coming from online advertising. \nThe simple solution to the revenue issues would be to make online users pay for content just like they would to read a hard copy. And while publications like The Wall Street Journal are getting away with this, it’s just impossible for most. The “democracy” of the Internet wouldn’t allow it because there will always be some site uploading news for free. And they cannot charge people to upload user-generated content for the same reason. The Internet has made us all not want to pay for anything.\nSadly, it seems newspapers don’t have much choice but to continue emphasizing the partnership between the print side and the online side of their publications. Many papers have been online for a less than a decade. The process is still in its infant stages. They’ve tried things that didn’t work – pop-up ads – and things that did – comments. And that’s what they’ll have to continue to do. \nPeople still want news and still want to get it from traditional news powers, just in alternative formats. Continue to produce great content online, and the readership will continue to increase, which could bring in an increase in ad revenue. The industry just needs to realize that newspapers can survive and even be profitable in the future; they’re just not going to be mega-profitable. \nAs depressing as it is, patience can see the industry through. People need the news, and we’re going to continue to give it to them, even if it is from a makeshift newsroom in our basements because we couldn’t pay our printing utility bill.
This week, the cable TV network TNT announced that it was developing at least 14 new original programs, all of which they hope to have on the air by 2010. TNT is hoping the programming will contribute to an all-original primetime slate.\nTNT’s move into more original programming – it already has hits like “The Closer” – is just another sign that the idea of the big four networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX) controlling all the quality shows is as good as dead. In fact, it’s arguable that the major broadcast networks are no longer the primary source of upper-echelon TV shows at all. The migration from broadcast networks to cable and pay-channels like HBO isn’t a new concept, but in today’s scheme of things, it’s more evident than ever.\nWhen asked, many critics would say the best shows anywhere on television are on premium channels. These would include “The Wire” and “Big Love” on HBO; “Dexter” and “Brotherhood” on Showtime; “Mad Men” on AMC; “Damages” and “The Shield” on FX; “Monk” on USA; and the aforementioned content on TNT.\nWhile that’s not to say there aren’t really great shows on network TV – “Friday Night Lights” and “Lost” primarily – it’s just \nthat the chances of building a successful and thorough narrative are much slimmer.\nThe primary reason for producers taking their shows elsewhere is due to the ever-suffocating pressure of advertisers and the FCC. Combined, the two make running a show an immense struggle on the creative end, so moving to less affected outlets seems smart. Being on one of the major networks also opens shows up to constant barrages of outcries from parent and other interest groups that simply don’t bother on lesser-known channels.\nAll of these issues lead to shows being canceled far too quickly without being able to create and sustain both a great storyline and a fan base. The corpses of many good shows lie at the feet of the majors because they weren’t able to get comfortable in their time slots or attract the right ad revenue.\nSo, as Turner Entertainment Networks President Steve Koonin says, the creative people are now coming to the non-major networks and looking to develop programming. Shows on these networks can be freely created and not see their counter-culture ideas scrapped. However, it wouldn’t be fair not to note the downsides of airing a show on a network like A&E or Showtime. Clearly, the ratings pale in comparison and the general public isn’t going to know about the show immediately. Additionally, the budgets are often going to be a bit smaller. But these sacrifices have been and should continue to be made. Smaller networks will be more satisfied with tinier ratings because they don’t expect as much. And as long as a steady audience is present, the production costs have seemingly worked out in the end.\nUntil the major players are willing to compromise with content and censorship, the migration to lower-profile networks is something that will only continue. Maybe in a few years when FOX is trotting out another anemic season of “Prison Break” and TNT combats it with a stellar show, someone will wake up.
Although she’s one of the biggest artists of all time, Janet Jackson has struggled in recent years.
Films about former kings seem to never get old. Just when you think every story has been told from the 16th century, yet another movie is released showing the contrary.
Recently, I found myself watching the “Knight Rider” remake/TV movie/backdoor pilot on NBC. Though not a fan of the original, I gave the program a chance, mostly because there wasn’t anything else on. Sadly, the only things I remember about the two-hour program were how atrocious the acting was and how the entire thing was nothing more than a blatant ad for Ford.\nActually, let me take that back. I also recall the continuous plugs for the network’s new show, “My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad,” yet another reality program like those NBC has been pumping out for months. At first, I was disgusted with the addition of more reality shows to the NBC slate. But then I realized something.\nThis is NBC, and based on its recent programming decisions, I wasn’t too surprised. \nI see NBC as the laughing stock of the major networks because of wonderful pieces of “entertainment” just like “Dad.” And the primary reason for the network’s demise: co-chairman of entertainment Ben Silverman. \nSince being named to that position in mid-2007 despite little experience — he somewhat had his hands in the Americanizing of “Ugly Betty” and “The Office” — Silverman has destroyed the miniscule amount of momentum the Peacock network drudged up before Kevin Reilly stepped down. Reilly, now the head honcho at FOX, was the primary force behind NBC’s few quality shows — “Friday Night Lights,” “30 Rock” and “My Name Is Earl.”\nThis is a network that used to be home to the likes of “Seinfeld,” “Hill Street Blues,” and “The West Wing.” Now, it is continuously beaten into the fourth position in the ratings. And what has Silverman done to change any of this?\nFirst, he took the network’s two “flagship” shows, “Heroes” and “The Office,” and attempted to milk them to death for the 2007-2008 season. “Heroes” got 30 hours combined with a spin-off called “Origins” while “The Office” got an unprecedented 30 episodes for the 2007-08 season. The move was obviously a bit much considering the first chunk of “Heroes” episodes was a disaster and the special one-hour editions of “The Office” struggled as well. \nSecond, Silverman has been slowly murdering of one of the best shows in the past ten years, “Friday Night Lights,” by moving it to the Friday night timeslot of doom. Just because it goes with the show’s title doesn’t make it a good idea. And now, post-writer’s strike, Silverman has been lobbying for anyone that asks him about “FNL” to “watch ‘30 Rock,’” because it’s “the best show on TV.” \nFinally, he’s allowed NBC’s schedule to be filled with pathetic reality game shows like “Amnesia” and “1 vs. 100.” And even when he and NBC have presented “original” material it’s been product placement-laced reboots like “Knight Rider,” or trash such as “Bionic Woman” and “Lipstick Jungle.” \nNBC and Silverman should be ashamed of themselves. Their programming is clearly the worst on network TV, and yet they continue to sabotage themselves by making bonehead moves that will guarantee they stay at the bottom. Let’s just hope no one gives them the great idea of rebooting other old classics like “Alf” and “The A Team.”
Films about teenagers and their “problems” haven’t had much success in the past few years, mostly because they follow the same tired formula.
Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of one of the saddest days ever for pop culture junkies of this millennium: the end of “The O.C.” \nYes, “The O.C.” was a fluffy teen soap that went from phenomenon to complete trainwreck seemingly overnight. And yes, it wasn’t always the best-acted show [read: Mischa Barton]. But, I truly believe that no TV program has shaped the actions of the generation of people between the ages of 15-22 and that no show has created more trends within the medium itself within the last handful of years. As a cultural text, “The O.C.” should be remembered for doing these things and not for falling apart two episodes into season three.\nWhen it debuted in August 2003 , no one was really ready for it, but by the end of that year, it was arguably one of the biggest shows on TV, primarily because of its young tween-inspired audience. But most people have already forgotten what the show did for that audience.\nThat age demographic was the first group of really young people with cell phones and they saw them being used to the fullest extent by people supposedly their age on the show. The constant referencing of bands, films, and comic books allowed the audience – still very impressionable – to find new things that could inspire them. And let’s not forget “Chrismukkah,” the merger of two holidays that some people now recognize for real. \nSure, lots of television programs inspire and influence the cultures around them – and some have even done it in similar ways as “The O.C.” – but I think no show has been more effective most recently. The show is most always grouped with “Beverly Hills, 90210” or “Dawson’s Creek,” which are fair comparisons. Yet while those two shows influenced the culture in fashion and ideals, they didn’t ever do them both as well or as often as Ryan Atwood and crew.\nBut the show really transcended the TV medium as well. Without it, I think that the landscape of television would be very different. Think about when it began; the shows dominating at the time were procedural dramas like “CSI:” or reality junk like “Survivor.” But once “The O.C.” gained momentum, a lot of its traits rubbed off into some of the new shows that now dominate the tube.\n“The O.C.” really emphasized the “episode-ending montage sprinkled with the indie track of the moment” craze that’s now used in many shows. As is the aforementioned integration of pop culture – especially music – phenomenon into storylines. And while the show’s extreme self-reflexivity hasn’t been matched yet, it will. Not to mention, the number of carbon copies – both scripted and reality – that hatched from it.\n Maybe “The O.C.” was just another flash-in-the-pan teen melodrama that didn’t influence our culture, but instead exploited it to its advantage before being so wrongfully cancelled last year. And maybe its supposed cultural worth is only existent to diehards who are still irate it was canned. But I’m not afraid to admit that I miss the Cohen family because in some way, I know “The O.C.” changed my life.
In the past, it seemed really easy for “true” punk fans to bash Simple Plan for being too, well, simple.
There is no question that Lenny Kravitz is a really cool dude -- one of the coolest, in fact. The thing is that the man hasn't had a big single since 2000's "Again." Since then, he's released two albums that have been moderately successful, but his star has definitely faded a bit. But now, Lenny's back with It Is Time for a Love Revolution.\nThe best words that would be used to describe Love Revolution are probably the exact words that have been used to describe all of Lenny Kravitz's albums for years: good guitar work, a few interesting arrangements and a handful of sappy ballads. It seems Kravitz assumed that the easiest way to recapture some of his past success would be to write and produce similar-sounding tracks. By doing so, he has created an album full of songs that run together and in the end, bore. \nLove Revolution opens with two typical Kravitz tracks, "Love Revolution" and "Bring It On," both of which feature his classic funk-rock type of sound. They're not bad songs, but when you listen, they sound so much like his past songs that you easily get caught up picturing him doing an "Are You Gonna Go My Way"-esque video for them. \nUnfortunately, it only gets worse. "Love Love Love" is nothing more than Kravitz listing off all the things he "don't need," which include: television sets, politicians, trains and shiny golden chains, among many others. And why? Because he's got love.\nEven the slower tracks, including the first single "I'll Be Waiting" and "A Long And Sad Goodbye," just aren't that interesting. The latter includes lyrics about a fractured relationship with his father: "Papa you meant the world to me / Why did you abandon me?" that just seem too sappy and elementary coming from a man of Kravitz's age.\nOn Love Revolution, Lenny fails to offer anything remotely new. Most of the songs here are too long and too boring to get into. Diehard Kravitz disciples will probably enjoy it, but it's safe to say the revolution attempt failed.
It’s been more than 14 weeks since the Writer’s Guild of America decided to strike against the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, and those 14 weeks felt like an eternity to TV junkies. Most of our favorite shows ran out of episodes early this season and some were even put into such jeopardy that they may never return. And don’t forget the damage the strike did to those involved in the industry, most specifically through unemployment. \nThat said, it was easy to measure the excitement when it was announced that the strike had finally ended, with a new agreement to be signed later this month. \nIt’s wonderful news that the awful process has met its endgame and the writers’ reasons for striking were validated; there is no questioning that. However, I am already sensing that people will look back and realize all of this wasn’t worth it. \nWhile the writers mostly got what they wanted – an increased stake in the “new media” residuals of online content and DVDs – it’s arguable that they could have had this much earlier. Early in the process, their unwillingness to budge destroyed any chances to end the strike quickly. It’s as if the WGA forgot that the AMPTP didn’t seem to care if it had written content or not. The WGA’s rough approach led to the stalemate in early December that required it to attempt its “divide and conquer” technique with each individual production company, which worked somewhat, but ended up ticking off the AMPTP brass and creating a chasm within the WGA’s own ranks.\nAnd let us not forget that the Directors Guild, who also had a contract ending soon, began and completed negations with the AMPTP within two weeks, basically making a mockery of the WGA’s efforts. It was even said that the Directors Guild agreement – which was similar to what the WGA wanted – would be the template to use, proving the WGA obviously had issues with their tactics.\nBut more than just the WGA lost here. It’s been estimated that the strike cost the Los Angeles region more than $2 billion, the majority of which was lost through service jobs. It seems more than $730 million was lost just in production of shows and films. None of that compares to the 10,000 crew members who lost their jobs, some of whom won’t even get those back.\nA more telling measurement of the strike’s effects might still be in development. Even the new scripted shows that have been airing recently have delivered anemic ratings, signaling that although people supported the WGA, they’re turned off by the strike’s length. Most of the networks will hurry their big-time players back, but only time will tell if those missing viewers will ever return.\nIt’s truly great news the WGA got what it wanted, but the repercussions of the guild’s actions may have negatively altered the industry for a long time. For now, I guess we’ll just have to be satisfied we’re getting more “LOST” and less “Heroes” this season.
