Speaking of No Talent...

Tim at In the Blog of Madness got me thinking about what passes for an "artist" these days. Sony had to pay radio stations to play J. Lo.'s latest "hit." Not surprising considering what little talent her type typically has. They don't write the song or play an instrument. When they sing the song, the wonders of modern computers actually make it sound like they are singing in tune. When her type performs, 50/50 if they will actually sing the song or just move their lips. What has the music industry devolved into?

I can just imagine when a J.Lo.-type needs a new song, she goes through a catalog of pre-written songs. These songs seem to be written my mostly the same small number of people who are probably paid well enough to stay in the background. Then she listens to the song, recorded by some actually talented person, so that she can get how the song goes (as I'm sure she doesn't read music). Then she mangles it in some studio, having the computers clean it up. Make pointless music video. Show up for some publicity. End of song process. I see so many of them as little more than trained monkeys. Singing when they are told to sing, smiling when told to smile.

It's no wonder that there are all kinds of illicit payments going on. Why would anybody looking for talent or a good song play this stuff by choice?

Which is why I'm sure that they've become "artists." They certainly didn't do much else, so give them some sort of a generic description.

Which is not to say that I think everyone on the radio falls into this category. Sure, there are plenty of Brittanys and J.Lo types, but there are certainly people who seem to actually have some sort of talent, writing songs, playing instruments. I've heard good things about both Avril and Vanessa Carlton.

The next time you look through the liner notes for some album, just see if the writing credits and the instrumental credits have anything to do with the "artist" in question.

Average Reporters

Lately I've been irritated by listening to reporters talk about "how X impacts average people." Who are these reporters to decide who is an average person. I hear that description of who they are talking to and all I can think is what an inflated ego that elitist reporter must have.

And average people like me need to know what average people say. As opposed to exceptional and remarkable people in the media! It seems like the logical inference from their statements. It's during these often pathetic "stories" that I'm amused because these same pieces mostly show what an average reporter I'm listening to.

Movie Ads

And speaking of movie irritations, theaters have cut down on the "Pre-Show Entertainment." These are ads. At least have the decency to call them that. Why are we watching ads for a movie I just shelled out $9 to see? Combine this with the frustation that these are not ads that are going to change anyone's mind about anything. Tonight's sampling:

• A mindless montage of empty high school sports locations with a voice over of all the sounds you would here in each location -- Which of course makes me want to buy Nikes.
• A bunch of multicolored dancing women singing about how everyone loves the silly Fanta song. Also, making me want to go purchase some lousy beverage.
• Random people rollerscating, informing me that "It's a coke thing."

I'm more likely buy a product or service during the slides that the do before the "Pre-Show Entertainment." The Pre-Pre-Show Entertainment?

I guess I can stomach the trailers for movies, yes they are ads too, but they seem much more appropriate.

I keep reading that domestic movie revenues are down. I can't help but wonder if people like me are tired of paying such a huge price for a movie ($18 for the two of use) and get subjected to 10 minutes of unnecessary ads when I can wait 2-3 months, and either get it Netflix (commerical-free), see it on HBO (commercial-free), or just buy the darn thing(commercial-free) for less than I would have paid to see it in the theater.

I found myself wishing for a the TiVo fast-forward button and making the ads go away.

Self Congratulatory

I just watched Batman Begins and was struck by the fact that it had no opening credits. I hope this is a trend that continues. I like their absence. When a movie just starts, you are immediately pulled in instead of sitting there, just waiting to actually see something. Off hand I can think of the Star Wars movies and Braveheart who also dispensed telling you what movie you are watching as well as the names of all the people who need to feel special.

The truly awful movies are the ones where nothing happens during the opening title sequence. Just some footage that some third string camera crew shot somewhere "appropriate" and a long, boring succession of random bigwigs scrolls by. If you insist on doing it, at least have the decency to give us something to look at other than just mindless irrelevant footage.

In fact, the whole concept of minutes of scrolling names of all those people even remotely involved in the production of the movie seems strangely out of place. What other product (barring TV) do we get told every last person contributing? The nearest we get to finding out something about the pants we wear is the "Made in China" label or the occasional "Inspector #477" sticker. Why is it important who the caterer was? Every time my company sells a product, we are lucky if our name even appears on it. And really, what does it matter?