In the 90s, the recording industry went after Napster and tried a case in the media that had no standing in the courts. There was, at the time, no law that declared the downloading of songs to be illegal - it was, at most, a murky gray area waiting for court or legislative clarification - but the recording industry, along with their criminal colleagues in the movie and television industries, hammered the public with the claim that there was until the court of public opinion was so solidly on their side that they could roll right over any opposition. This was followed in 1998 by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), written almost entirely by industry insiders and one of the greatest legal travesties ever foisted upon the American public. The DMCA upended decades (at least) of legal precedent and handed unimaginable power to the entertainment industry, power that is abused on a daily basis with bullying, unjustified "take down" notices and "civil" trials that fine average citizens more for downloading music than corporations get for causing grievous bodily harm. In the middle of this end run around all common sense, copyright ownership, which was intended by the nation's founders to be for a short time and for the benefit of public interests, was extended to "life of the creator plus 75 years". There is not one of these legal changes that benefits We the People, but everyone of them is tailor-made to benefit the recording, movie, and television industries at the expense of We the People.
And it keeps getting worse.
The entertainment mafia has been whining for so long about piracy cutting into their profits that people have stopped listening. (It couldn't have anything to do with poor quality product and the entertainment industry's adamant refusal to adapt to modern business realities, could it?) Now they're complaining about movie rentals cutting into their profits. Rather than attempt to come up with a new business model that addresses this so-called issue, the movie industry's plan is to pressure major rental outlets into accepting a new scheme where movies do not become available for rent until after they have been available for sale for one month. The rental outlets would probably make money on this deal because the only way they would play along is if the movie studios cut them in on a major bulk rate deal for their movie purchases. The only people who would lose out on this price fixing scam would be the rental customers. You don't actually believe the rental outlets would pass along those savings, do you?
The thing is, price fixing is exactly what it would be. If any other industry were colluding in this manner, they would be pounded with the anti-trust hammer. So why is the entertainment mafia immune from such considerations? Never mind the fact that this is one of the dumbest business ideas ever. There is zero chance that making rental customers wait an extra month is going to cause any noticeable increase in movie sales. Rental customers are already used to waiting and most of them will just wait a little longer. For that small percentage that absolutely must see the movie the day it hits DVD? The only logical conclusion is to expect an increase in piracy, the exact opposite of what those geniuses in the industry want.
Of course, maybe it isn't stupid. Maybe a measurable increase in piracy actually is what they want. Then they could use that excuse to flex their muscle and demand laws like the ones currently causing all the rage in Europe. You know, the ones that say that, if you are accused three times of copyright violations, you lose your internet connection for life. Yes, you read that right, "accused" and "for life". How's that for a nice, happy due-process thought?
What's that? You say it can't happen here because we have laws to prevent that? So do they. The European Convention on Human Rights - which, for human rights issues, functions for them much the way the Bill of Rights is supposed to function for us - states categorically in Article 6.2, "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." I'm not sure whether or not they have "punishment fit the crime" provisions but, since much of our law was based in British Common Law, I'd bet they do. It doesn't stop them any more than it stops us, in some states, from locking up people for life for stealing a pack of bubblegum.
The entertainment industry, as it exists today, is a criminal organization that strives to use force to maintain their profits because they are too lazy to try to run a business. They will continue to do so as long as we let them. Stand up and make your voice heard. Just Say No to organized crime running our legal system.
Showing posts with label entertainment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label entertainment. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
An Inspirational Performance
Yesterday evening I had the privilege to attend a concert performance by "The President's Own" United States Marine Band. (Before I receive any corrections, I too thought they were called the Marine Corps Band, but the band's official documentation does not use the word "corps", so I am naming them as they name themselves.) We all know that I was Army, not Marines, but I have no problem giving praise where it is due and it is certainly due in this case.
The Marine Band was established by an act of Congress in 1798 and is, thus, the oldest and longest running military and professional musical organization in the country. Their primary mission is to "provide music for the President of the United States and the Commandant of the Marine Corps" and they are the only musical organization, military or otherwise, with such a specific mission. They have performed for every Presidential inauguration since Thomas Jefferson and it was Jefferson, himself, who gave them the additional title "The President's Own".
The Marine Band is not what one might normally think of when considering a military band. It's members are auditioned in the same way that one would audition for any major symphony or orchestra and with the same rigorous standards. Many band members hold advanced degrees in music and they are recruited into the Marines specifically for service in the band. The Marine Band is, in short, both a prestigious musical organization and a proud symbol of American patriotism.
They did not fall short in either regard last night.
The program was a mixture of patriotic music (mostly composed or arranged by Marine Band alumni, such as "The March King" John Philip Sousa) and works from modern American composers (such as Aaron Copland and John Williams) but I almost feel that I have to say the highlight was the beginning. Believe me, you have never heard The Star-Spangled Banner performed in all it's glory until you have heard it performed by The United States Marine Band. The only thing that could have improved that (which I would not learn was possible until later in the program) was if they had it sung as well as performed. It did turn out that they could have done so. The concert moderator, Gunnery Sergeant Kevin Bennear, sang a patriotic medley with the band toward the end of the program, and his voice was the equal of anything I have ever heard from Broadway. I would loved to have heard his take on the National Anthem.
The band was conducted, for most of the performance, by their senior Director, Colonel Michael J. Colburn, and he was almost as much fun to watch as the band itself. His direction was spirited and precise, with plenty of flair but no wasted movement. The Assistant Director, Captain Michelle A. Rakers, and, though I don't believe she was quite up to the caliber of Colonel Colburn, my opinion might be slightly biased here. Captain Rakers directed the single piece by Copland, and I am just not a big fan of Copland's work. It's too busy with not enough focus.
The final name that must be mentioned individually is Master Sergeant Matthew Harding, the band's trumpet soloist. The band performed the allegro con brio from James Stephenson's Trumpet Concerto which is, essentially, one of the most complex and daring trumpet solos ever written, with orchestral accompaniment. The Master Sergeant proved the first part of his rank with his amazing performance on such a difficult piece.
I have never heard this band perform before and I doubt I will have the opportunity again, but I am grateful for this one chance. It was an evening well-spent and a truly inspirational performance. If you ever get the opportunity to see The United States Marine Band perform, take it. Whether you are a fan of this particular music or not (and, you must be able to tell, I am) you will find the time spent to be uplifting and thoroughly rewarding.
The Marine Band was established by an act of Congress in 1798 and is, thus, the oldest and longest running military and professional musical organization in the country. Their primary mission is to "provide music for the President of the United States and the Commandant of the Marine Corps" and they are the only musical organization, military or otherwise, with such a specific mission. They have performed for every Presidential inauguration since Thomas Jefferson and it was Jefferson, himself, who gave them the additional title "The President's Own".
The Marine Band is not what one might normally think of when considering a military band. It's members are auditioned in the same way that one would audition for any major symphony or orchestra and with the same rigorous standards. Many band members hold advanced degrees in music and they are recruited into the Marines specifically for service in the band. The Marine Band is, in short, both a prestigious musical organization and a proud symbol of American patriotism.
They did not fall short in either regard last night.
The program was a mixture of patriotic music (mostly composed or arranged by Marine Band alumni, such as "The March King" John Philip Sousa) and works from modern American composers (such as Aaron Copland and John Williams) but I almost feel that I have to say the highlight was the beginning. Believe me, you have never heard The Star-Spangled Banner performed in all it's glory until you have heard it performed by The United States Marine Band. The only thing that could have improved that (which I would not learn was possible until later in the program) was if they had it sung as well as performed. It did turn out that they could have done so. The concert moderator, Gunnery Sergeant Kevin Bennear, sang a patriotic medley with the band toward the end of the program, and his voice was the equal of anything I have ever heard from Broadway. I would loved to have heard his take on the National Anthem.
The band was conducted, for most of the performance, by their senior Director, Colonel Michael J. Colburn, and he was almost as much fun to watch as the band itself. His direction was spirited and precise, with plenty of flair but no wasted movement. The Assistant Director, Captain Michelle A. Rakers, and, though I don't believe she was quite up to the caliber of Colonel Colburn, my opinion might be slightly biased here. Captain Rakers directed the single piece by Copland, and I am just not a big fan of Copland's work. It's too busy with not enough focus.
The final name that must be mentioned individually is Master Sergeant Matthew Harding, the band's trumpet soloist. The band performed the allegro con brio from James Stephenson's Trumpet Concerto which is, essentially, one of the most complex and daring trumpet solos ever written, with orchestral accompaniment. The Master Sergeant proved the first part of his rank with his amazing performance on such a difficult piece.
I have never heard this band perform before and I doubt I will have the opportunity again, but I am grateful for this one chance. It was an evening well-spent and a truly inspirational performance. If you ever get the opportunity to see The United States Marine Band perform, take it. Whether you are a fan of this particular music or not (and, you must be able to tell, I am) you will find the time spent to be uplifting and thoroughly rewarding.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Video Award Stupidity
If you follow music entertainment news at all (and probably if you just casually follow the news at all) then you are no doubt already aware of the uproar caused yesterday when Taylor Swift won the MTV Video Music Award (VMA) for Best Female Video and hip hop star Kanye West jumped on stage,took the mic from her, and basically announced that someone else (in this case, fellow hip hop star Beyonce) should have won instead. I was going to write a post denouncing this tactless, boorish behavior, but then I continued reading. My conclusion was: What's the point? I have denounced Kanye West in the past - he is a no-class loser and he insists on demonstrating that fact almost every time he goes out in public - but music fans as a whole are so much in arms that they really don't need one more cheer leader. Besides, I found something else in those comments to attract my attention.
While most people who have commented on this topic have been very angry or disappointed with West's behavior (most depending on where their emotional/fan state started from), there have been some defenders of West who state that he was "just speaking the truth". I would put those people in the same "no-class loser" category as West, but they're not really my point here. If you aren't clever enough to know that, truth or not, dashing on a young lady's (a young lady who is almost universally considered to be one of the nicest, sweetest people in modern entertainment, no less) special moment instead of waiting until a more appropriate time is not acceptable, civilized behavior, no amount of words from me is going to fix you. Actually, that "just speaking the truth" part of the story is my point here.
See, I'm confused. I - unlike some of these other people, apparently - completely understand that entertainment is mostly subjective, not objective. It is mostly about personal tastes and opinions, not about measurable, empirical data. Some of it, however, is objective. You can objectively tell whether or not a person knows how to play a piano with skill, regardless of your opinion on the particular songs that person might choose to play. I don't know, I hope you can. That seems to me to be a pretty simple thing, but this is where I'm confused.
There are three classes of comments that are the cause of my confusion. There is the already mentioned "just telling the truth argument" but there is also a related argument from the other side. That argument says, "Obviously Beyonce's video was better, but Kanye shouldn't have done it that way." And finally - and this one goes back to the Kanye defenders - there is the argument that says "Taylor Swift has no talent anyway."
I'll take them in reverse order because that will be easiest. That's purely objective.
You cannot honestly make the claim that Taylor Swift has no talent unless you are completely oblivious to reality. You can easily claim that her particular talent is not to your taste, but that's not the same thing. Just because you don't like the particular, specific results of her talent does not negate the talent itself. As a whole, I dislike the rap genre. Over the last 20 years I can probably count the number of rap songs I've actually enjoyed on one hand, two if I'm feeling extra generous. (Here's a funny Full Disclosure for you: Kanye West actually has one of those songs.) I still recognize the talents involved with certain artists despite the fact that I don't personally care for the results of those talents. So you don't like country music. This prevents you from recognizing the talents of a teenage girl who writes most of her own songs, directs many of her own videos, and - at 19 years old - has a career that many senior entertainers would envy? I'm sorry, that's just blind stupidity.
I can handle the other two arguments in one blow because they're really the same argument, just the polite version and the rude version. That argument says that Beyonce's video was obviously better than Taylor's and "everyone knows" that Beyonce should have won that award. Here's a clue for you people: that's a subjective opinion and cannot be proven one way or the other. Sure, you can pile up objective facts about the videos - technical features like use of lighting, videography, photography quality, editing, etc. - and, if those facts carry a significant amount of weight, you can probably lean toward an objective statement of which video is better. In certain extreme cases you might be able to make an objective statement - for example, if I were to make a music video, you would probably have no trouble objectively stating that either of these two ladies' videos was better - but in the end it still comes down to one person's opinion of how well those facts came together to form a whole versus another person's opinion. It's still subjective. You cannot objectively state that Kanye West was "just telling the truth" and that Beyonce's video was "obviously better".
Shall we compare objective facts about the two videos? I actually sat through them both to form my own opinion, so I would find such a comparison worthwhile. Swift's video is a classic story video, with characters acting out roles per the lyrics of the song. There is no dialogue in the video, so it's all physical acting and I didn't see any significant problems there. The girl opposite Swift could have been better but she was also supposed to be a stereotype, so that may have been intentional. Lighting, editing, sound, etc. all seemed to be of the expected professional caliber. Beyonce's video was black and white and featured three women dancing in bathing suits on a featureless stage with shifting lighting effects. I'm not being facetious here. That's literally all there was. Again, there were no glaring technical issues. The lighting effects were put to good use and the women demonstrated the expected dancing talent. I personally found the dance to be somewhat repetitive and not able to hold the attention for the length of an entire song (unless of course you're looking at the women and not actually watching the video as a video), but that's my own subjective taste. If you prefer your music videos to have something to do with the song then the preponderance of the evidence would be in Taylor's favor. If you prefer dancing videos then the preponderance of the evidence would be in Beyonce's favor. If you truly believe that the bulk of the music video watching audience is specifically one or the other then you need serious psychological help.
In short, label me as one of those who actually does believe that Taylor had the better video and deserved the award (at least between those two - I didn't watch the others since they weren't the argument), but I accept that as a subjective statement. If you believe that Beyonce had the better video, that's your subjective opinion and you're welcome to it. What you're not welcome to is the claim that there is some objective standard by which you are right and I am wrong. Beyonce was not ripped off. There were simply people who didn't agree with you and their subjective opinions carried more weight.
I almost feel like I should thank Kanye for giving me something amusing to write about outside of politics but, instead, I'll just offer some free advice. Get some help. You are obviously spinning out of control and when that leads to being an obnoxious bully toward a 19-year-old girl and destroying a memory she'll never get to have again, I'd say you've crossed a line.
Congratulations on your VMA, Taylor. And, for the record, Beyonce too Video of the Year, so congratulations to her as well.
While most people who have commented on this topic have been very angry or disappointed with West's behavior (most depending on where their emotional/fan state started from), there have been some defenders of West who state that he was "just speaking the truth". I would put those people in the same "no-class loser" category as West, but they're not really my point here. If you aren't clever enough to know that, truth or not, dashing on a young lady's (a young lady who is almost universally considered to be one of the nicest, sweetest people in modern entertainment, no less) special moment instead of waiting until a more appropriate time is not acceptable, civilized behavior, no amount of words from me is going to fix you. Actually, that "just speaking the truth" part of the story is my point here.
See, I'm confused. I - unlike some of these other people, apparently - completely understand that entertainment is mostly subjective, not objective. It is mostly about personal tastes and opinions, not about measurable, empirical data. Some of it, however, is objective. You can objectively tell whether or not a person knows how to play a piano with skill, regardless of your opinion on the particular songs that person might choose to play. I don't know, I hope you can. That seems to me to be a pretty simple thing, but this is where I'm confused.
There are three classes of comments that are the cause of my confusion. There is the already mentioned "just telling the truth argument" but there is also a related argument from the other side. That argument says, "Obviously Beyonce's video was better, but Kanye shouldn't have done it that way." And finally - and this one goes back to the Kanye defenders - there is the argument that says "Taylor Swift has no talent anyway."
I'll take them in reverse order because that will be easiest. That's purely objective.
You cannot honestly make the claim that Taylor Swift has no talent unless you are completely oblivious to reality. You can easily claim that her particular talent is not to your taste, but that's not the same thing. Just because you don't like the particular, specific results of her talent does not negate the talent itself. As a whole, I dislike the rap genre. Over the last 20 years I can probably count the number of rap songs I've actually enjoyed on one hand, two if I'm feeling extra generous. (Here's a funny Full Disclosure for you: Kanye West actually has one of those songs.) I still recognize the talents involved with certain artists despite the fact that I don't personally care for the results of those talents. So you don't like country music. This prevents you from recognizing the talents of a teenage girl who writes most of her own songs, directs many of her own videos, and - at 19 years old - has a career that many senior entertainers would envy? I'm sorry, that's just blind stupidity.
I can handle the other two arguments in one blow because they're really the same argument, just the polite version and the rude version. That argument says that Beyonce's video was obviously better than Taylor's and "everyone knows" that Beyonce should have won that award. Here's a clue for you people: that's a subjective opinion and cannot be proven one way or the other. Sure, you can pile up objective facts about the videos - technical features like use of lighting, videography, photography quality, editing, etc. - and, if those facts carry a significant amount of weight, you can probably lean toward an objective statement of which video is better. In certain extreme cases you might be able to make an objective statement - for example, if I were to make a music video, you would probably have no trouble objectively stating that either of these two ladies' videos was better - but in the end it still comes down to one person's opinion of how well those facts came together to form a whole versus another person's opinion. It's still subjective. You cannot objectively state that Kanye West was "just telling the truth" and that Beyonce's video was "obviously better".
Shall we compare objective facts about the two videos? I actually sat through them both to form my own opinion, so I would find such a comparison worthwhile. Swift's video is a classic story video, with characters acting out roles per the lyrics of the song. There is no dialogue in the video, so it's all physical acting and I didn't see any significant problems there. The girl opposite Swift could have been better but she was also supposed to be a stereotype, so that may have been intentional. Lighting, editing, sound, etc. all seemed to be of the expected professional caliber. Beyonce's video was black and white and featured three women dancing in bathing suits on a featureless stage with shifting lighting effects. I'm not being facetious here. That's literally all there was. Again, there were no glaring technical issues. The lighting effects were put to good use and the women demonstrated the expected dancing talent. I personally found the dance to be somewhat repetitive and not able to hold the attention for the length of an entire song (unless of course you're looking at the women and not actually watching the video as a video), but that's my own subjective taste. If you prefer your music videos to have something to do with the song then the preponderance of the evidence would be in Taylor's favor. If you prefer dancing videos then the preponderance of the evidence would be in Beyonce's favor. If you truly believe that the bulk of the music video watching audience is specifically one or the other then you need serious psychological help.
In short, label me as one of those who actually does believe that Taylor had the better video and deserved the award (at least between those two - I didn't watch the others since they weren't the argument), but I accept that as a subjective statement. If you believe that Beyonce had the better video, that's your subjective opinion and you're welcome to it. What you're not welcome to is the claim that there is some objective standard by which you are right and I am wrong. Beyonce was not ripped off. There were simply people who didn't agree with you and their subjective opinions carried more weight.
I almost feel like I should thank Kanye for giving me something amusing to write about outside of politics but, instead, I'll just offer some free advice. Get some help. You are obviously spinning out of control and when that leads to being an obnoxious bully toward a 19-year-old girl and destroying a memory she'll never get to have again, I'd say you've crossed a line.
Congratulations on your VMA, Taylor. And, for the record, Beyonce too Video of the Year, so congratulations to her as well.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Stupid People Saying Stupid Things
I don't often make two posts in one day but I had to file a quick Stupid People complaint. I was just reading an article on some movie casting that interests me and had to comment on the comments.
Chris Hemsworth, who plays George Kirk in J.J. Abram's current Star Trek hit, has apparently been cast in the lead role for the upcoming Thor movie (based on the Marvel comics of the same name and part of the ongoing Avengers series of movies) and he has also been cast as Jed Eckert in the upcoming remake of Red Dawn (the character originally portrayed by Patrick Swayze). I'm not a huge comics Thor fan but I am very interested in what they are doing with the Avengers movies (and I've been very pleased with what they have done so far). I am also a big fan of the original Red Dawn (I don't care how cheesy people think it is in modern context - it wasn't made in modern context) and Patrick Swayze was my favorite in that movie. I'm unsure how a modern remake would work, but I'm willing to wait and see.
So then I get to the comments section and find two commenters saying essentially the same thing. One comment says, "Boring casting choice - very american" (sic) while the other says, "Can you say alpha male American stereotype a little louder." (sic)
First of all, when did American become a pejorative? Are these elitists unaware of the fact that American movies are often the most popular movies around the world, not just in America? That would seem to imply that being American might actually be a good thing.
Second, the actor in question isn't even American. He is Australian, which the article very clearly states. Now I'll grant you that it might make a bit more sense to cast someone Nordic to portray a Norse god, but when has that ever mattered in movie casting? To describe this as American casting, however, is bound to put a few Australians up in arms.
Finally - and most importantly, to my way of thinking - how is "alpha male" even a complaint here? Is the commenter the least bit familiar with the characters in question? We're talking about the Norse god of thunder and a redneck big brother who leads a group of teenagers in a fight against invading forces. Can you get any more alpha male than these character descriptions themselves? Seriously, if the concept of alpha male offends you then these are not movies you should be looking at in the first place.
I'm convinced that people who comment on these movie sites just love to see their complaints in print, but why would you advertise stupidity? I don't understand.
Chris Hemsworth, who plays George Kirk in J.J. Abram's current Star Trek hit, has apparently been cast in the lead role for the upcoming Thor movie (based on the Marvel comics of the same name and part of the ongoing Avengers series of movies) and he has also been cast as Jed Eckert in the upcoming remake of Red Dawn (the character originally portrayed by Patrick Swayze). I'm not a huge comics Thor fan but I am very interested in what they are doing with the Avengers movies (and I've been very pleased with what they have done so far). I am also a big fan of the original Red Dawn (I don't care how cheesy people think it is in modern context - it wasn't made in modern context) and Patrick Swayze was my favorite in that movie. I'm unsure how a modern remake would work, but I'm willing to wait and see.
So then I get to the comments section and find two commenters saying essentially the same thing. One comment says, "Boring casting choice - very american" (sic) while the other says, "Can you say alpha male American stereotype a little louder." (sic)
First of all, when did American become a pejorative? Are these elitists unaware of the fact that American movies are often the most popular movies around the world, not just in America? That would seem to imply that being American might actually be a good thing.
Second, the actor in question isn't even American. He is Australian, which the article very clearly states. Now I'll grant you that it might make a bit more sense to cast someone Nordic to portray a Norse god, but when has that ever mattered in movie casting? To describe this as American casting, however, is bound to put a few Australians up in arms.
Finally - and most importantly, to my way of thinking - how is "alpha male" even a complaint here? Is the commenter the least bit familiar with the characters in question? We're talking about the Norse god of thunder and a redneck big brother who leads a group of teenagers in a fight against invading forces. Can you get any more alpha male than these character descriptions themselves? Seriously, if the concept of alpha male offends you then these are not movies you should be looking at in the first place.
I'm convinced that people who comment on these movie sites just love to see their complaints in print, but why would you advertise stupidity? I don't understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)