R.I.P Music CD's

Alright, so I didn’t really know what I was going to write about until yesterday when it hit me. I was hanging out doing work at school listening to my iPod when I heard an old song from the early 2000’s come on. The song was 50 cent’s “In Da Club” which I had not heard in awhile but I remember in 2003 when it came out it was like the hottest song of all time. Everyone that I know that listened to hip hop or rap loved it and it was being playing all over the radio, so even if you weren’t into hip hop or rap you probably still heard it. The reason I bring this up is because I started thinking about other music that was big in the late 90’s and early 2000’s when I was in middle school. I remember that the main stream media when it came to music for me was all about 50 cent, Eminem, Linkin Park, Creed, Nelly, Dr. Dre and more. For those who don’t really know who I am talking about and was more involved in the boy band and pop scene this was the same time as Backstreet Boys, N Sync, Britney Spears and early Christina Aguilera.



So I came home that day and I looked at my CD collection which I don’t ever use anymore and just took a look at what CD’s I had and I realized that I had all the best selling CD’s from 98-04 weather it was 50 cent’s “Get Rich or Die Trying” or Linkin Parks “Hybrid Theory” and Eminem’s “Marshall Mathers LP and “Eminem Show”. I also noticed that didn’t own a CD that was released after the 2006. It only took a few seconds for me to realize that around that time of 05-06 I got an IPod and after that I really didn’t need CD’s anymore. So after that I went online and did a little research and I keep seeing that the best selling albums from like 98-04 were selling like 7-9 million for the year and even more if you include a 2 to 3 year span. If you take a look at the best selling albums the past 3 to 4 years you see that the best selling albums are only selling like 3 to 4 million. That’s approximately 3 million less people going out and buying the album. To dig further into it, in the early 2000’s the most popular CD’s like the one’s I own were selling for $15-$20, now a days the #1 selling album you can probably go to Target or Wal-Mart and buy for 11 or 12 bucks. So it’s really weird to think how far we have come just over the past 10 years when you look into the music industry. It was only that long ago that all of us heard a song on the radio or borrowed a CD from a friend and then said I have to go out and buy this so I can listen to it in my room on my boom box or my portable CD player before a game and on the way to school on the bus.




So to me none of this really surprises me when you think about it because over the past 10 years the way the mass media has forecasted itself to the public is totally different. Early 2000’s you were being persuaded to go out and buy these CD’s because they were “must have” products. Now since the invention of the iPod and legal or illegal downloading becoming much more popular, the media no longer forecast music as physical CD’s that need to be bought but now that can be delivered to us electronically, digitally or through file sharing. In the past few years with the inventions of ITunes and YouTube and almost every electronic device we buy today coming equip with both of them, how much longer do you think album CD’s will serve a purpose in today’s society. I know for me they already don’t because if I am not listing to my IPod I am listing to a CD that I burned or someone burned for me. So at the end of the day I see no purpose to go out and buy an artist album when I can simply get it for free or download it off a program. So my question to you is does anyone really go to the store anymore to buy music albums/CD’s like they use to and also what does the future hold for them?

Share

Tweet

And the Fashion World Succumbs

It’s official: fashion designers are joining the world wide web. As of this year, the internet has become, and is still becoming, an essential medium for designers to showcase new seasonal collections.

Many runway shows are now being streamed live on the internet. Alexander McQueen is one of the first fashion designers to utilize this medium to its full potential. He teamed up with SHOWstudio and streamed his brilliant and other-worldly Spring 2010 collection, “Plato’s Atlantis,” live from Paris. Not only was his designs revolutionary, but so was his showcasing to the entire world as it was happening.

Fashion has always been a small world—only the invited were allowed into the show, with the exception of a few guests who were lucky enough to snatch up tickets, and the rest of the unprivileged world had to wait months to see the new designs in print. Designers during the fashion weeks also followed suit and allowed their shows to be filmed live.

Live streaming adds a whole new dimension to the fashion industry. Instead of only a handful of people being able to experience a live show, everybody in the world is now able to tune in. And people, such as myself, who always wished to be front-row during a fashion show, can now fulfill that dream. Granted, watching a show from a computer can never compare to being at an actual runway show.

However, designers such as Donna Karan, are opposed to this new development because they want the traditional show to remain and keep its “mystique.” But let’s face it, Ms. Karan: technology is taking over and it was only a matter of time before fashion reached the media. If the fashion world ever wants to expand, it needs to find a way to reach out to a lot more people, and live streaming is certainly a fantastic new medium to use. And designers will most likely make more profit since hundreds of people are now able to see the new clothes as they’re being introduced.

So for all of you people out there who can’t find tickets to your favorite shows, just sit back, spray on some clothing, tune in to stylelist.com (where fashion week shows were streamed), and enjoy a front-row experience without the cost.

Share

Tweet

If you’re not going to say it in person, why say it online?

Random Girl’s status update: Suzie you’re fat and no one in school likes you!
24 people like!


If you’re not going to say it in person, why say it online? Not only do kids get harassed in school in forms of physical and verbal abuse but they are also being attacked on the computer through different social networks. Given all this new media, bullies do not have to confront there victims face to face. Bullies can now do it through Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, formspring, IMing, etc. They are torturing the lives of there victims, and can do it anonymously now. Anybody can make a fake MySpace or Facebook, and degrade there victims by writing on there walls, in-boxing them, and even chatting with them. There comes a point in the victim’s life where they are fed up with the name calling and harassment. They figure that “if the kids don’t stop, then maybe I will”…and they end there lives completely by committing suicide. They kill there selves over other people who are talking about them and making them feel like they are worth nothing. Last year Alexis Pilkington, a senior at West Islip high school had committed suicide after she was cyber bullied by a number of people on Formspring. People calling her every name in the book, harassing her on the computer and making her feel like nothing, it drove her to the point of suicide.

I think people cyber bully, and bully in general because they are not happy with there own lives that they feel the need to take it out on other people. I also feel that after hearing about children doing that to other children, parents should play a bigger role in there part of parenting and monitor there kids more.


Personally, I am going to share something with you all that has happened to me when I was a sophomore in high school (I am now a senior in college.) I was best friends with this girl since I was in 6th grade. We told each other everything and did everything together like best friends do. To make a long story short, we got into a really big fight and she made my life hell for 3 months. She would prank call my cell phone and house phone, threaten me and my family, and took it a step further by making a fake myspace and posting my different pictures on the background on the myspace page with derogatory and profound words like “whore” “slut” “bitch”…The about me section she wrote lies which instantly were rumors around school. You name it she did it. She destroyed my reputation and my year as being a sophomore in high school. That was my experience that I had with cyber bullying and it is not something that should be happening. But how could it not? Like I said earlier, there are new social networks that allow anything to happen, anything to be said, and no censorship whatsoever. The only thing you can possibly do is “block” the user(s) and pray that they’ll leave you alone and not get anyone else to go after you.

Share

Tweet

Computers Vs. TV’s Both with facebook and twitter?

Over the past few years Verizon Fios has broadened its horizons by adding new widgets that allow customers to go on Facebook and Twitter right on their TV. Are TV and computers moving on the track to becoming one? That’s what Matt Hamblen thinks, a writer for computerworld.com. He states that there have been“15 million Facebook sessions on Fios TV in less than a year, and as many as 5 million tweets and states. "People like the dialog on a subject or program they have in common with others”.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9176444/Verizon_FiOS_TV_feeds_Twitter_Facebook_generation

Its true though isn’t that what a lot of people do? You see something good on TV and you immediately post a status on Facebook, Tweet it or write on a friend’s wall that is watching the same thing. The concept is kind of brilliant in my opinion because it cuts the middleman out, you don’t even have to open your laptop. You simply press the widget button on your TV remote and BAM! There’s Facebook waiting for your comment.

This commercial shows how easy and accessible it would be to communicate and ultimately social network on the TV. Some of the benefits include saving energy by not having your lap top plugged in while watching TV and having the option to simply switch to Facebook or twitter on a commercial. It’s also awesome to see your pictures on a flat screen TV. But in the scheme of things a laptop will always be in a different category than TV because they are more portable and are used for a lot more than Facebook and Twitter. But who knows months or years from now Verizon could actually combine there other features with the ability to stream the Internet with their Fios plan. I don’t know how well that will take to the older population due to the fact that it is not necessarily practical and would probably hike up the price of Verizon Fios a little bit. Yet…with the young social networkers of the world this would be an easy way to pass on information about our TV show addictions with our friends.

Share

Tweet

Elmo Fans: A Little Red in the Face?

Katy Perry, everyone's favorite "California Girl," was the guest star on a Sesame Street episode, performing a parody of her song "Hot N Cold" with Elmo. The producers of the show recognized this as a great opportunity to rack in the ratings, thinking that the 25-year-old princess of pop's appearance would attract the younger parents to watch with their children. However, instead of praise, the producers received massive amounts of unceasingly negative backlash. Katy was shown wearing a dress that was a bit revealing due to the low cut neckline, and it left viewers chest deep in anger. The executive producer, Carol-Lynne Parente, was shocked at the negative feedback, all a result of Ms. Perry's ample bosom. Parente goes on to say that they would never have the intentions of producing something that was considered inappropriate, and they greatly value the opinions of parents, even if it differs from their viewpoints. Consequentially, Katy Perry's debut on Sesame Street was canceled faster than you can say "Snuffleupagus."

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that people had so many complaints about her appearance on the show, which was leaked on Youtube. Katy Perry is known for her revealing outfits and her own, unique fashion sense, which seems to mold seamlessly to her personality. I do not think she should have been penalized for what she was wearing. Granted, it would have been easier if producers had just given her a more conservative outfit or tried to cover up her double D's, but viewers would have then found something else to complain about. There was not all negative feedback, however. Some fans defended the beloved mistress of Russell Brand, saying that the clothes represent dress up clothes that any young girl would wear while playing as well. There were herds of people who spoke up in her defense, pointing out that Miss Piggy wore more revealing clothing than Katy's "controversial" outfit.

Do parents honestly believe that boys and girls from the ages of three to six that watch the show are really going to be focusing on her chest? Thinking back to when I was a child, I'm pretty sure I would be more interested in Elmo and the song that I could dance to rather than Katy Perry's chest area. If they bash this, then they should also be in an uproar about other children's shows that are obscene and advocate violence or unpleasant behavior. In addition, if any of these parents are Cablevision customers, their children most likely watch Noggin (channel 123), which airs children's shows chiefly in the morning/afternoon hours. Most of the commercials on that channel are for the television series Degrassi, which displays mature content. I think that the parents blew everything out of proportion and made it into an issue bigger than Katy's bra.

Of course, the producers of Sesame Street had to pull Katy off of the show because they needed to accomodate their fans, but at least they left the video on Youtube to be watched by people who don't get red in the face over something so miniscule. Elmo himself spoke up to say that he loved Miss Katy. As for Ms. Perry, she expressed her feelings on the whole situation with her comedic skit on Saturday Night Live.

Share

Tweet

3D TVs... The Newest Fad

I just recently saw a commercial for the new 3D TVs that have just hit stores.

After having already heard several people talking about them I had some idea of what they entailed. However, I have ONLY seen the commercial for these TVs and have not yet been able to actually experience one in person. When first hearing the idea I was somewhat confused, I pictured people sitting around in their living rooms with paper or plastic glasses on watching television. The second thought that came to my mind was how uncomfortable it would be, having to constantly wear these "glasses" whenever you wanted to sit down and watch a movie or show. I don't know about anyone else but I personally love seeing 3D movies. However, I find the glasses to be very uncomfortable as well as annoying. They never seem to fit my face right and continuously fall off. I find myself having to hold them in place or keep adjusting them throughout the entire movie and, well, naturally I tend to get aggravated by this. So, for this reason, I couldn't help but picture myself doing the same thing if I were to purchase one of these 3D TVs. Aside from the annoyance, what if I wanted to turn on the weather or the news in the morning as I am getting ready for the day. Would I really be able to wear these "glasses" as I am getting dressed or continuously leaving the room? And to top it all off, I have also heard that these 3D glasses (which actually turn out to be a lot nicer than the ones we may be picturing from a movie theatre) cost somewhere between $100-$250 dollars per pair. Yes, I agree, they better be nicer than the movies for that price! After hearing this interesting fact it came to mind, what would happen if I wanted to have a few friends over to watch a new movie that just came out, would I have to go out and spend a thousand dollars just on glasses alone? At this point, it just seems like buying one of these 3D televisions would be nothing more than an inconvenience.

I also think that having this 3D feature on a television really takes away from the excitement of the 3D feature. I mean, isn't half the fun of going to the movies being able to see the latest 3D movie that just came out? If a feature like this is made readily available to us all in our own homes, then what purpose do any of us really have in going to the movies? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to sit in the comfort of my own home and watch a 3D movie. But at the same time it kind of seems to take the fun out of it. The 3D feature seemed to be one of the only things left that we were only able to access in a movie theatre or with the purchase of the occasional 3D movie to come out in stores. But with these new TVs we wouldn't have to go to the movies or wait for the movie to come out in stores, we'd be able to access the same feature in our own homes.

There is clearly no doubt in my mind that these TVs will be successful with all of the tech-savvy people in the world today, I just don't know if it is something that I would be interested in purchasing. I'm sure they are already working on it or are in the process of coming out with it, but I think that a TV like this would be more successful and definitely more convenient if they made it possible to be watched without the 3D glasses. Personally, I know I may be more interested if this were the case, but for now I'll just stick to going to the movies for the 3D experience and save a couple thousand dollars!

Share

Tweet

You know...I just don't get it.

The person pictured, is possibly the biggest fad in America right now. She is famous  for literally being a walking lush who apparently doubles on the weekends as a trash receptacle. She is arguably the #1 "musician" in the country right now. She represents a decline in a medium that I loved. And now has burrowed in my skin and formed a hatred so deep that runs in my veins and causes me to just about immediately outcast anyone who likes this. That's right. I go there.

Pop music has always been a bit of an experimental proving ground for musicians. Where things generally considered too wide for a certain genre's margin can be picked up on and loved by many. It's a popular concept, which has seen MANY musical innovations. From Elvis' incorporation of Black soul and Southern country into rock and roll, to Pink Floyd and Rush becoming virtuosos in the field of progressive rock, to Sonic Youth's ultra unique sound and rap's overall influence on everything from the late 80's to today, music has seen many an innovation. However, lately it appears as if all innovations have stopped. Suddenly, if you have a $20 T-shirt from Hot Topic, skinny jeans, flashy ass neon sneakers, a Roland TR-808, a vocoder and a MySpace page, congratulations, you're a "pop musician". And Ke$ha is the WORST case scenario of it all.

Ke$ha, rose to prominence in 2008 with a guest spot on a Flo-Rida song, (another less than superior talent, but I'll be damned if he doesn't make danceable songs) it was less than memorable, but hey she had the right look, so they signed her anyway. Fast forward to Autumn 2009, a synthesizer melody plays on my radio. This ensues.



And soon. Teenage girls everywhere had found their new anthem. I had found the bane of my existence. I as a musician was astounded as to how easy people had taken to this song, granted it had a very catchy beat and eye grabbing lyrics, but when analyzed by a musician's eye, it's baffling. I look at someone with legitimate musical talent like a Caleb Followill of Kings of Leon who has spent YEARS and ALBUMS learning how to capture a room with his voice, and finally make it to the top, and then hear a woman like Ke$ha TALK over a crappy electronic beat and easily surpass Kings of Leon in the Billboard charts within 3 months. But that's not even the half of it.

"Musicians" like Ke$ha, know they aren't musicians, so they use the umbrella term of "artist." Implying that their pure crap is an artistic expression. I know art is supposed to be subjective. But, this CANNOT be art. It makes no strides to be different. It yields no innovations. There is little to no emotion in this. This is cookie cutter crap. It's insulting to art.

However, what's really depressing, is it's looking more and more likely that original music will quite possibly become an afterthought. All roads wind through pop music. And this one road is being clogged with unoriginality and soullessness. And no one's listening to the music on the way to it's demise. They're looking at it.

I'm Na!m, and I hate pop music. I used to love it though.


(P.S. More this, less Ke$ha.)

Share

Tweet

UFC vs. WWE

Since marketing was invented, kids have been a long sought after demographic. The theory can be as easily put as saying, "Get them while they are young and they will buy your product for life." Sound strategy and obviously, it works. Kids these days are bombarded with products since the day they are born. From what to wear, to what music to like, or whatever latest gadget has just come out. Kids see it and are influenced to buy it or buy into it. Parents shell out the cash and boom! You have just made a new customer. But where do we draw the line?

Growing up, I was addicted to professional wrestling, mostly the WWE. I remember seeing my first match between the Big Bossman and some two-bit performer named The Berzerker. To me, these guys were larger than life (probably because they weighed around 500 pounds collectively) and I was hooked from day one. The WWE wasn't as big a media conglomerate as they are now. When I was a kid, you could buy shirts, action figures, magazines, posters, and VHS tapes. That was about it. Nowadays, WWE has attacked the movie industry with their own production studio. They sell music (in fact, I can probably name only a handful of performers who don't use a song made by a well known band). They produce five hours of television every week and have even separated themselves into two brands by splitting their roster down the middle. Point being, the WWE is worldwide. Their impact is huge on kids, especially since they now openly market themselves to children and their TV shows produce a PG rating. Long gone are the days of beer drinking renegades, trashy women, foul language, and pointing to your crotch. Nowadays, it is a clean cut super hero who preaches hustle, loyalty, and respect fighting a cold snake-like villain. It has become cartoonish again for the first time since the late 1980's.

Growing up. My dad would just tell me that wrestling is fake and that these men and women were highly trained athletes. Vince McMahon even says wrestling is staged. But what about UFC? They promote themselves as this generation's version of boxing. A 100% real combat sport with no scripts, no faking, all beat downs and blood. Their biggest star is arguably Brock Lesnar, a former pro wrestler. UFC is WWE's biggest competition, even though both sides dispute that claim. UFC, and mixed martial arts in general, aimed at the 18-49 demographic. They claim they are an adult form of entertainment. Yet, at the mall the other day I noticed something strange. UFC now distributes action figures.

They make kid's toys. They created kid's clothing. The made "play" gloves. That doesn't seem to me that they are marketing to adults. Their TV show on Spike TV airs at 8pm. One full hour earlier than WWE's Monday night show, 2 full hours before WWE's all-woman Tuesday night show.

Children are a powerful demographic to control but when do we draw the line? It is bad enough that baseball has its steroids scandal, that football condones DWI arrests, that hockey is a game played by toothless goons, and basketball celebrates their biggest star as a goodie goodie even though he cheated on his wife.

Kids have a hard time finding role models that deserve to be role models. My father can't turn to my 10 year old little brother and say that UFC is fake. He can't explain to him that they are just acting. They aren't. Yes, I am bashing UFC. Deal with it. At least with wrestling, I can point at who is responsible should something unwarranted reaches a child's eye. They have a script they follow. UFC doesn't. This isn't some Katy Perry Seasame Street controversy. This isn't kids playing video games that depict violence. This is real violence. Real blood. Real flesh being ripped apart in a human dog fight that Michael Vick would be proud of. And somehow, it is celebrated as the hip thing to watch in sports circles. "Ooo that wrestling stuff is fake!" they will holler. Yes, it is. It's no different than a movie, except that wrestling is live. At least when a guy gets hit with a chair in wrestling, he gets up and walks to the back. In UFC, on their TV programming they hype guys getting knocked out for good. Take a look for yourself on what they promote and tell me that you'd approve of your kids watching this on TV, buying their merchandise, and becoming a life long follower:


Cursing, trash talking, impending violence, threats, glorifying broken body parts, among other things. Think this is a good outlet for kids? I'd hope not. So why are they selling kid's merchandise? I'd love to find out. It will only get worse too. UFC is only getting bigger. They are exploring the possible markets overseas. Their pay per view events are growing in number and UFC 100 drew roughly 1.5 million buyers, that event featured Brock Lesnar in the main event.

To recap: Wrestling is fake, UFC is real. Wrestling markets towards kids with a PG product. UFC markets to kids with what should be a Rated R/TV-MA rating. UFC is going international and their PPV's are rapidly expanding. I guess the only thing we can feel safe about is our daughters. Dana White, president of the UFC, has openly stated that woman's fighting doesn't appeal to him. At least he has some morals. But he does want MMA to be an Olympic sport.

Ain't that a kick in the head.

Share

Tweet

The Death of Books

I noticed a severe shift in technology when my cousin, who is nine years younger than me, received that same exact digital camera I did for Christmas, a couple of years ago. At first I had an immature reaction caused by only-child-syndrome, so I naturally whined to my aunt, who handed out these gifts, that it wasn’t fair that I received my first digital camera at nineteen years old, and a ten year old got the same exact thing! Anyway, that’s really besides the point…However, my aunt did point out to me that times have changed and that kids no longer want dolls or toy cars, they want cameras, video games, and iPods. This all made me start to wonder, what has occurred that technology is so prevalent in the lives of today’s children?

Today, it seems that right out of the womb, children are set in front of a computer and taught how to use it. Kids are somehow born innately attached and attuned to technological things that were completely foreign to the generation before them. Even in this new age, fundamental skills might be lost due to these gadgets, especially since the introduction of E-readers, such as the Kindle, Nook, and iPad.

Video games and iPods are one thing, but to digitize a book is a complete other. I don’t know if it’s just me being an English nerd, but I love books! I love reading them and, even, collecting them. I cannot image a world where people would no longer be relishing in cracking a binding of a new, or old, book, only for it to be replaced with a touch of a button.

I guess it could also be a fear that the children of the world are just going to become fatter and stupider than they already are. However, if this is the only way to get them to read, then more power to the E-reader! But I also think losing the physicality of holding a book in your hands will completely deter kids from reading. Take the iPad for example: it does way more than just let you read books electronically, so if a child is given that, will they be reading or playing a game or surfing the web? It will mostly likely be one of the latter.

Furthermore, now all of the companies that produce E-readers are in fierce competition with each other. They are trying to make the lightest, cheapest, fastest e-reader they can. Each one has its own flaw; the Nook having a “lag” in page turning, the iPad doesn’t have a big enough book selection, because of everything else it can do, and Kindle, which is the best out of all three for books, is just trying to keep up with the most popular kid in school, Mr. iPad.

My conclusion is all of these things are all well in good; heck, I even want an iPad, but I’m also going to keep reading, and collecting, books; and this dilemma comes down to what parents and teachers are going to be doing for their children. I’m not saying we shouldn’t advance; we just need to draw the line somewhere.

Share

Tweet

Gphone on the Horizon?

Two weeks ago, when logging online to check my Google Mail account, I was approached with a foreign "welcome" page. Google told me that I was selected to trial run their new calling feature: Google Voice. I immediately clicked "accept," as I fear falling behind the pack with novel add-ons like this. Once the installation process completed, a "call phone" feature (photo to the right) was now available as a permanent online contact for my chat list.

Wasting no time, I placed my first phone call (to my girlfriend) and was surprised to find clarity, crisp reception, and (gasp!) no "drops." Admittedly, I was not the "receiver" in this real-life Shannon-Weaver experience, but the call seemed to lack any "noise" that would cause her to end the call or, in the least, ask that I call back on another device. The clarity and lack of "drops" are just the start it seems, as Google provides the following video to sway other users to give "Voice" a whirl:

As a Media Studies Professor, I was happy to see the brief history of communication and telephony at the start of the clip, but, that aside, Google (again) may be on to something with "Voice." Having a single phone number that links to every device could both be a blessing and a curse. A blessing because it would significantly cut down on the aforementioned "noise" (see: Shannon-Weaver) in the communication process by making you available always. That, however, is where the curse comes into play.

If someone is, in fact, available always, there may be a rise in telemarketing and voice-based "spamming" (much in the same way your single e-mail is susceptible to "spamming"). That all said, it would be very un-Google for Google to not have considered that... I hope.

In the end, it seems as though Google Voice may have a better shot at breaking through where Google Buzz and Google Wave have faltered. The greatest reason I can consider, aside from managing your own Google Voice account, would be the price: Free. With many people cutting costs where they can, why not start with a $150 phone bill every month? Seems worthwhile to me anyway.

Share

Tweet

Welcome to Dowling: Mediated

Welcome to "Dowling: Mediated!" Below is a video welcome from me before our blog begins its launch over the coming days. Throughout the course of this semester, each student author will be publishing six entries, if not more. By the end of the semester, it is my hope that Dowling: Mediated delivers an example of what it means to be both a media producer and consumer. Thanks in advance for reading and I look forward to future comments!

Share

Tweet