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

It's easy to quickly pass Judgement; on matters especially that of aesthetics; most notably what is or is not Beautiful or Ugly, Good, or Evil. Of course, no one is ever objectively Right or Wrong about these things, because the very concepts are synthetic, man-made.

With that in mind, I've tried to review several new bands, books and movies with what my Philosophy teacher called a "charitable interpretation". Having helped make several movies, songs and with a very-nearly completed book on the way, I am giving other works of art the same kind of review I would like to receive. Which means I try to work past the first impression. I will give bands three songs before I say I like or don't like them. I will read 20 or so pages of a book instead of 20 or so words, before deciding whether I want to keep reading or not, and I will try to maintain my maniacal laughter when looking at poor quality artwork on CD/DVD inserts.

Take this movie for example: A Perfect Creature.

Check out the cover for it. Awful. And comparing your lame-ass vampire move to 'Children of Men' on the cover? Wow, the Audacity. I didn't like the movie right there on the shelf at Hollywood Video, and I didn't even know what it was about...

...First Impressions, heh. Like I was sayin', let's try to move past those, shall we? So I actually took the DVD case down and flipped it over. The synopsis was interesting, a completely different take on the entire vampire mythos. Good, because the one we got could use some "completely different"-ing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased as punch that Anne Rice recovered the Vampire from a B-Movie bloodsucking machine back into the sophisticated evil anti-hero I think Bram Stoker intended when he wrote Dracula. But is this all we got? Cause if no one has anything new, then it's time we packed up and moved on. I might have mentioned this before.

Anyway, I'm glad I moved through my initial perception of this and rented "A Perfect Creature", because it was an extremely good movie.

First off, despite the very very Very poor quality graphics on the DVD case, the movie was, in fact, Not Independent as I initially thought. It has the 20th Century Fox brand on it, although the handful of production companies sound as dodgy as a used car salesman's last day at work.

Second, it wasn't just the plot that was good. The whole alternate-reality mythos created by Glen Standring (an Archaeologist!!!) is amazing and well thought out. Humans and vampires get along in a completely mutually beneficial, sacred, and peaceful relationship! Wow, wrap your mind around that one, then add in the fact that the movie was given a grayish 60-s feel, especially regarding technology.

Aside from these things, it uses a pretty standard good-guy/bad-guy action adventure plot, that moves along just quick enough. The movie had decent scoring, and Excellent art direction, esp. some great angular shots that added to the strangeness of this alternate universe.

After seeing it, I would have to agree that A Perfect Creature is a reasonable cross between Children of Men, 28 Days Later, and of all things "The Chronicles of Riddick" No, really!

Anyway, the lesson is to not judge a book, DVD or local band by their covers.

KTHXBYE,
-CZ

Labels: movie reviews, Philosophy

Every now and again, there are albums that I have to play. HAVE to. Must. After a while, the pain of Not playing them becomes unbearable. If my spirit was a plant, these recordings would be sunlight and water. If my spirit were an addict, these recordings would be Audio Crystal Meth:

Marillion - Brave (1994)
Marillion - Misplaced Childhood (1985)
Marillion - marillion.com (1999)
Nine Inch Nails - The Downward Spiral (1994)
Nine Inch Nails - Pretty Hate Machine (1989)
Nirvana - Nevermind (1991)
Marilyn Manson - Antichrist Superstar (1996)
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon (1973)
Pink Floyd - Animals (1977)
Pink Floyd - The Wall (1979)
Pink Floyd - The Final Cut (1983)
Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms (1985)
Neil Young - Unplugged (just the first half...) (1993)
Robert Plant - Now and Zen (1988)
REM - Document (1987)
Days of the New (1997)
Bob Mould - Bob Mould (1996)
Nixon Pupils - Helldozer (mid 1990s)
Johnny Jones - Small Sacrifices (mid 1990s)

Notice how none of these albums was made after the year 2000? I'm trying to figure out why. With access to damn near every single band in the world available through myspace.com, you would think I would still be finding music that I simply can't live without, but that's not the case.

Is it because newer music is fundamentally different in some way? Looking at Billboard's top 10 I only recognize two of them, one being Korn, and the other (I'm ashamed to say) is Fergie. Yes, I've listened to the entire Dutchess album, and already forgotten what that was like. Is the 'click' gone from current music? Are newer songwriters and bands less talented than they were in the 80s or 90s?

Perhaps the problem is me. Have I fundamentally changed? Most certainly, I'm not remotely the person I was in the 90s. But I still listen to music, and I love music so much I play it all the time. The world just seems empty without it, like watching an epic adventure movie without a soundtrack or score.

Perhaps it is a little of both? Is it because at that point in my life the music clicked with me, and current music doesn't? I don't think so, I have a car-full of CDs that click with me right now, but I can't say I'll be dying to hear Velvet Revolver, Kamelot, or Black Label Society years from now.

Oh well, something for my Inner Philosopher to think about when he gets back from vacation.

Now notice that there isn't a single album in that list with a female lead singer...

KTHXBYE,
-CZ

Labels: Culture, Inner Philosopher, music, Philosophy

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

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 recently read about a Sociologist who was doing a study of bathroom graffiti across the nation. It makes sense really - in complete privacy and anonymity, people have the opportunity to write absolutely anything they like, and they know it will be read by members of the general public. (Well, of the same gender anyways). And I bet a lot of info could be gathered by dividing the content by geographic, gender and other divisions. For example, does women's restroom graffiti have more profanity than men's? Does gas station restroom graffiti differ from other types? Do urban graffiti topics differ from rural ones? Where does most porno-graphic-art occur? Where do the funniest jokes occur?

It occurred to me that blogs (personal blogs anyway) are similar to bathroom graffiti, without the anonymity and with a far greater potential audience. They smell better too. Mostly.

Because of the lack of anonymity, I suspect the authors will edit themselves accordingly - most likely to shape the sense of their perceived identity. In effect, a blog post says, I want you to know *this* about me, and *this* is what I think is important/funny/stupid etc.

That is an important difference, because it means that blog posters could *lie* (gasp!) or at the very least emphasize what they want you to think/know about them, and deemphasize what they don't.

Even so, a person's blog probably says as much about them as the bumper stickers on their car, and one could (if one were so inclined) perform an analysis of a person by the content in their blog. Is the content cheerful and upbeat? Or brooding and cynical? Is it all about themselves, or the world around them, or some balance between the two?

Anyway, it would be an interesting experiment for all you fellow bloggers out there to take a look through your posts and decide what they tell the world about you, and what that could mean. Looking back through my own posts as though they were written by someone I did not know, I would guess the following:

• This person likes Computers, Under-Rated B Movies, and Industrial Music


• This person hates DRM, Dashboard Confessional, Quentin Tarrentino, Over-Rated Which Fail To Deliver, and Stereotypical American Attitudes


• This person probably wears a lot of Black


• This person is a Listmaker

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: Blogging, Call To Action, Culture, Philosophy

My step-grandmother passed away recently, and the funeral was yesterday. My step-grandfather is a member of the Ojibwe tribe in Hinkley, MN and therefore, part of the funeral ritual was conducted by a Medicine Man, which included 'smudging' all of us with sage, and 'passing the pipe'.

It was a much more moving ceremony than the traditional pastor-in-the-pulpit, rambling on some jibber-jabber that sounded more like a lecture, and even more like it was written out in advance, all the blanks filled in with the appropriate names.

Instead of an hours worth of rhetoric, the medicine man told us about a dream he had. It was not only short, but also meaningful and memorable. I don't think I will ever forget it, and I can quote it to you here.

Life is a like a path through the woods. The path is long, and sometimes people want to take a shortcut. But those who try to take a shortcut get lost, and have to go back, and start over. Those who take the long way get to the end first.

At the end of the path, you meet the Creator. He looks at some and says, 'You are ready to come with me, your work here is done.' To others he says, 'I am leaving you behind, because you still have something here to do.'

So if your're reading this, I guess you still have some work to do. And I bet it's not reading this lame-ass blog.

Blog on,
-CZ

Labels: A Day In The Life, Philosophy