Here is an interesting study which looks at how people determine what music is 'popular' and what is not:

http://www.livescience.com/health/060209_hit_songs.html

Interestingly, the findings were that people decide what is popular by looking at what other people think is popular.

I mentioned this in a previous blog post, I'm just glad someone else did the research to back me up.

Art Is Resistance
-Zero

Labels: Cultural Observation, Culture, music

There's a piece missing. That seems to be the problem.

Anyone in the world who can find the "audio in" jack on their soundcard can record, edit, and upload their songs to the internet. Any fool with a video camera and i-movie can make a video. Anyone with a library card has access to a word processor, and the internet.

Welcome to 2008. No flying cars yet, but much of the known world can access the media created by anyone else in the world.

The part that is missing is in-between. Now people have access to all the media in the multiverse, but it seems like a lot of people don't know what to listen to, what to watch, what to read...

...because they don't know what they like...

...because they don't know what other people are watching, reading and listening to.

Stupid, right? Well, there's people who like songs because they like them, and there's people who like songs because other people like them.

You might have heard the term "Pop" before, it's actually short for "Popular", like the cute, blonde girl in your school who is always picked for things: Homecoming Queen, Student Council, 'Most Likely to Succeed', and of course, 'Most Popular'. There's people who like her because they actually know her and think she is a likable person, and there's people who like her because other people like her, because it is the popular and accepted opinion to like her, because it would make you an unpopular minority if you chose Not to like her.

TV shows? Movies? Music? Books? Religion? Politics? Same thing.

The difference is that some people actually have some facts to base their opinion on. There are people who take perceptive observations before coming to a judgement, and there's sheeple who need to check with everyone else before making their decision.

Which brings me back to my point: with all the media in the world a few mouse-clicks away, what do you listen to? What do you watch? What do you read? There used to be a 'man' who was more than happy to decide for you what was popular, in the form of your local papers, radio and TV stations: The Man. The Reference.

But that Reference is gone, and there are far too many sources scrambling to replace it. So do we go by Myspace friends or Facebook? Amazon or Rolling Stone?

There's a piece missing. That seems to be the problem.

Or, is it?

Art Is Resistance
-Zero

Labels: Cultural Observation, Culture, Philosophy

No one should be surprised that Emo's have come under attack.

It appears that Emos in Mexico are falling prey to ALL other subgroups, or more correctly, mankind as a whole; "...punks, rockabillies, goths, metalheads and basically anyone who’s not emo."

If you got Rockabillies picking on you, you're pretty low on the totem pole.

I think it's some kind of strange quirk of human nature to group together against anyone who is different, and the Emo's "helpless and hopeless" attitude certainly qualifies. I don't really want to empathize with them, but I've been on the receiving end of the violence, so I know what it's like to take the long way home just so you don't run into 'trouble'.

Perhaps it's part of the Earth's natural healing system? Perhaps humans just have an innate need to act out aggression towards others, and what safer target than Emo kids? It could even be as simple as Jagged Spiral say in their latest song, "God Hates Emo".

Regardless, as much as I rip on Emo, I'm taking this opportunity to clarify my position: I've nothing against Emo Kids. I'll continue to make fun of them the way I would make fun of anyone else, and the way they are free to make fun of me; the way my sister and I continue to harass each other to this day.

HOWEVER(part 1)

I don't endorse violence against Emos. They are free to dress and act however they like. You are free to make fun of them. They are free to tell you to fuck off if you don't like it. Ad nauseum...

HOWEVER (Part 2)

Before you think Mr. Zero has grown a bit soft, let me lay your fears to rest. The Emo genre of music, and it's brother Screamo, are atrocities not only to music, but humanity. Therefore, the War against Emo stops here, and starts anew as The War On Emo Music.

Thanks to J-man for the story link.

Art Is Resistance
-Zero

Labels: Cultural Observation, Emo Sucks

Yet another article about the loudness war.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aug07/5429

For those who don't know, the Loudness War is the music industry's attempt to make their recordings louder than everyone else's, because research has shown that louder songs get noticed more.

No shit. Sadly the research told them nothing about the quality of the recordings.

There is a hint in the article that current overcompressed music fatigues listeners, and that it might account for the decrease in music sales, but of course there is no proof of this.

The article also talks about future technologies like “Replay Gain” which try to nullify the Loudness War by playing back all songs at the same relative volume.

I agree with Bob Katz, recordings that are overcompressed and radio stations like 93X that blatantly abuse volume compression, forsaking all else for loudness are ruining music, and make it tiring to listen to. Hey, compress the shit out of MP3s because they’re meant to be listened to on laptop speakers and I-pod earbuds. But CDs should take advantage of their dynamic range and richness of sound. Let the consumers wreck the music if they want, but if I'm buying the CD, I can turn the volume knob up myself. I'd much rather have a rich recording that breathes.

I MEAN, WHY DON'T WE JUST TYPE ALL OUR BLOG POSTS LIKE THIS? IT MUST BE BETTER BECAUSE IT GOT YOUR ATTENTION, RIGHT?

KTHXBYE,
-CZ

Labels: Business Phenomena, consumerism, Cultural Observation, music, Music Industry, Technology

It would be an interesting test to see how much marketing and advertising affects product sales:

What would happen to sales of Coca Cola if they completely STOPPED advertising? Continue making the product, continue selling the product, but no more commercials. No more ads. No more endorsements.

If you are a marketing exec, you want to believe deep down in your ...well, the place where normal people have a soul, (but since you are a marketing exec, you don't, so I suppose ...deep down in that place where a soul belongs,) you believe that everyone would stop buying the product.

But would they?

Same for bands - imagine if, at the height of their career, the Beatles hid underground and never let another picture of themselves grace the outside world. No contact with the public. No e-mails. No web presence. No updates except the albums themselves. They could still tour wearing masks or gorilla outfits, or behind a curtain. Would this change their music? Of course not. Would it change their music sales, if all you had was the music and album cover art?

After all, how many of you know what Pablo Picasso looks like? Or Howard Shore? Or James Cameron?

How come music fans and industry alike demand to know who you are, and what you look like, and where you are from? If an old, balding Jewish guy wrote a song that was simply the Hit of the summer, would people Not buy it?

I think they would.

I think they did.

KTHXBYE,
-CZ

Labels: consumerism, Cultural Observation, music, Philosophy

Hey, the Recording Industry reads my blog!

Check out this story in the NY Times by Jeff Leeds, about a group just signed by a record label..

...to do Two songs. TWO. Thas'all.

Sound Familiar?

The album distribution model was perfect for hard-copy records, tapes and CDs. So you really liked "Pour Some Sugar On Me" because you heard it on the radio. You ran down to Musicland on 3 August in 1987 and bought Hysteria the day it came out. You paid $11.99

Why did you pay that much for one song? You didn't. You only wanted the 'hit', and you might have actually paid twelve bucks for it, but that truly would be a rip-off, since the single (in cassette tape format, natch) was available for $3.99. That makes 12 songs for twelve bucks sound like a hell of a deal. Those were your options, and they sucked.

But not anymore. On the interweb, you preview each song before you buy it, and you pick and choose the songs you want. Who the hell wants to buy the entire album of Wang Chung's "Points on the Curve"?

You only want this song, and this one. Maybe this one, if you're a true fan.

But this? It's crap. If it was a piece of furniture in your house, you would pay to have it hauled away; you certainly wouldn't want to be caught Dead with it taking up space in your I-Dope Shuffle. The song was tossed into the album so the price could be set higher, a technique called "Value Added", a concept thought up by a marketing person who should have been disemboweled for coming up with the idea.

Yes, the time is up for the album. It's just as well, since few bands use albums to their full potential anyway. The article mentions Tool and Radiohead, but has anyone heard of Jethro Tull's "Thick as a Brick"? The CD has one track on it, about 45 min long. Its not even a concept album. It's a 45 min SONG.

Concept albums? Nobody does that anymore. You'd have to be drunk or stupid to even try that shit nowadays.

But the real proof that the record companies read my blog? I quote:

Another solution being debated in the industry would transform record labels into de facto fan clubs. Companies including the Warner Music Group and the EMI Group have been considering a system in which fans would pay a fee, perhaps monthly, to “subscribe” to their favorite artists and receive a series of recordings, videos and other products spaced over time.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/business/media/26music.html?ex=1332561600&en=7a34accc8988c811&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I wonder if I will get any credit for coming up with the idea first.

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: Business Phenomena, consumerism, Cultural Observation, Million Dollar Idea, music, Music Industry

I had heard that the humorous fantasy film, "An Inconvenient Truth" won at the Oscars (which I also just heard were last week, which also tells you how much I care.)

Much to my surprise, I found out it won Best Documentary, which does not make sense to me, since it wasn't Best, and it wasn't a Documentary. I saw enough of it to tell you that a bunch of facts stacked adjacent to each other with a cause-and-effect relationship implied, and humorous quotes between them does not a 'documentary' make.

For example, is the following a documentary, yes or no?


...Now we know that Anna Nicole Smith died the other day, AND she ate Count Chocula cereal for breakfast the day before she died. Let me repeat that, because it bears repeating.

It is a scientific fact that she ate Count Chocula cereal for breakfast.

It is a scientific fact that she died the next day.

Now I think we all can see what's going on here, and wasn't it Confucius who said, 'Man who stick hand in pocket feel cocky?' [laughs] ...


Don't misundertake me, the lifestyle of your average Americans needs cleaning up. We need to reduce pollution, at both the business and the consumer levels. People need to be aware of their 'Global Footprint'.

But anyone who tells you they have Scientific Proof of Global Warming or Cooling needs to get a few million years of reliable data before they can even be taken seriously. How do you know that the earth is not on the way back to normal from a temperature fluxuation that started a half million years ago?

The answer? You Don't. And YOU want to fuck with the global thermostat? Keep your fucking hands Off!

Pollution is another matter. You can measure pollutant levels objectively, and we can talk rationally about what causes them, and how to reduce them. You can make a law against world-polluting products like this. But don't show pictures of baby birds and a graph showing the decline in the Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker populations to try guilting everyone into buying a Ford Hybrid.

To put scientific facts next to each other and imply a relationship for your own purposes is Evil, and only works on stupid people. [Editors Note: Perhaps stupid people are the target audience?] It is still Evil EVEN IF YOUR INTENTIONS ARE FOR GOOD.

Gandalf the Grey knew this:


"Don't tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand Frodo, I would use this Ring from a desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine..."


See? Gandalf knows shit. Be like Gandalf, and not like Emoman.

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: americans, Cultural Observation

Wikipedia has a List of Horror Film Killers, and looking through it, there are not as many different horror protagonists as you might think. (In horror film, anyways.)

They tend to fall into the following genre categories
-Aliens
-Monsters
-Deranged Humans (Jason, Michael Meyers, etc...)
-Serial Killers (Hannibal, Zodiac, etc...)
-Undead/Zombies
-Inanimate Articles (Cars, Houses, Videotapes, Dolls...)
-Clowns
-Vampires

I was wondering why the Least frightening item on the list is the most popular.

Vampires are not that scary. I think they are scarcely worthy of Horror genre. They are Gothic for sure, and that's why I still enjoy the movies like Underworld or Blade.I try to understand the interest (more like Craze) that found it's Rennaisance with Anne Rice's novels (sorry, never read them), and Buffy The Vampire Slayer (never seen them, but I'm not sorry about it).
I will say it again, so there is no misunderstanding.

Vampires are Pussies. Lame-O. Horror-Lite.

...and I mean that in the derogatory sense. Which would you rather meet in a dark alley, a vampire, or one of the creatures from the movie Alien?

Horror genre should be horrifying! Terrifying! It literally should make your skin crawl! It doesn't have to be a gore-fest, because gross is not the same thing as horror, and it doesn't have to be a shock-fest because shock is not the same thing as horror, but it also not Anita Blake. My only explanation is that people want to have that little thrill rush which only being scared provides,but they can't handle the real thing, so they settle for Diet-Horror, or Horror-Lite.

Scare on,
-CZ

Labels: Cultural Observation, Philosophy

I'm working up a costume for Halloween. Those of you who saw me in 2004 as Marilyn Manson or last year as 'the Ghost of John Wayne' know that I spend more time and prep on this pagan holiday in one year than I have on all Easters combined.

I have two thoughts about Halloween. If you are going to a Halloween party, then you need to wear a costume. That's the point. If you aren't going to wear a costume then stay at home. (And don't be like my neighbors the Jehovah's Witnesses, and pretend you aren't at home. That is bullshit, and you deserve every roll of T.P. that you end up with.)

Furthermore, Halloween should be scary at best, creepy if possible, and surreal at the very least. If the kids wanna dress up like Spider-man that's great. But we already have plenty of 'Holidays' throughout the year that are filled with rainbows, princesses, and cute fucking bunnies. Enough. Come on people, it's Fall, and the land is dying all around you. The dead are here, walking the earth, and if you don't 'treat' them, they will 'trick' you.

And you decide to dress like a pirate.

Like I said, that's pretty surreal, so that's OK in my book. But when the forces of Evil come to my door, my costume is going to scare the piss out of them. So what if I have to clean Satan's piss off my front step? I'll be laughing while I do it.


Anyway, I was just reading about the most popular costume choices for Halloween, and I noticed several things 'wrong with this picture' I will point out a few of them, your homework is to find the remaining 348.

First, why is 'Princess' topping the list for costumes for kids, and 'Witch' is the top costume for Adults? I think this says something about the American Subconscious. Could it be that all little girls are taught (or inbred with) the desire to be rich, beautiful, loved, (and helplessly dependent on some strong, handsome male figure) just like in every God-Damned Disney Film Ever Made? This might explain why 'Red Cross Volunteer' did not make the list. Then again, I don't really speak fashion. Anyone care to interpret for me?

Second, Why are 'Disney Princesses' counted separately from 'Princesses'? Hmm? WTF? A princess is a princess is a princess.

Third, Why is 'Dracula' not counted among the 'Vampires'? Hmm? WTFFF? A vampire is a vampire is a freaking vampire, and not a one of them frightening in the least. I notice they didn't differentiate between 'Butt-Ugly-Witches-With-A-Wart-On-Their-Nose' and the 'Smokin-Hot-Sexy-Witches' which is a HUGE difference, when compared to differentiating Dracula from all other Vampires.

Fourth, Why in the name of all that is flippin good in the world, why are more adults dressing as 'Pumpkins' than as 'French Maids'? This makes me sad.


Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: americans, anti, Cultural Observation, rant