This is great in oh so many ways. People dressed up as vegetables rapping and singing. A celebration of grilling. Sexual innuendos galore. And is it just me or is this song grossly catchy? For as much as you want to turn to the side and hurl at the oddity of this video and its conception you can't help but look away. Mesmerizing really. Watch this one in its entirety a few times. There are many a subtle nuances. Let's be honest, we all would have had a toss-your-salad romp filming the video with these veggies.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Rolling Stone's Obsession With Obama
I'll be the first to say I am most surprised to have two Rolling Stone blog complaints in a row, but alas, I feel it necessary to get something off my chest (unusual for me I know). This one, at least, can be kept shorter than the first.
Please get Barack Obama off the cover of my Rolling Stone--twice in less than 3 months. I reiterate, twice in less then 3 months. He has nothing to do with music. At least not in any capacity that deems gracing (and I use that word in this context lightly) the cover of an established music magazine. I know RS has grown (again I'm opting to use that word lightly) into more of a pop culture magazine of movie and reality TV celebrities rather than remain a true magazine of legitimate music journalism and critique. But TWICE IN LESS THAN 3 MONTHS. I don't know the cover history of RS but I can almost state for fact that few musical artists have ever achieved such a feat.
I've already ranted about RS's lurid biasness towards the left, and this clinches the validity of my opinion quite nicely. On one cover Obama is the sole image, uncharacteristically surrounded by the text of featured articles. On another he seems to glow. It is almost as if RS wants to make readers think "Hey, this man is a god." Now that message in itself isn't such a bothersome issue with me. If I had to choose a political side I more often than not tend to lean towards the left. (Sure deifying a man is down right blasphemous).
But RS was, at one point, about journalism and I can respect journalism only when it covers an issue in its entirety. No biases. No promoting an agenda. No catering to the intended audience to sell more issues. I mean there's no McCain, or not even Hilary, who is on the same blatant political spectrum as the magazine. Just try, RS, please try, to uphold some journalistic integrity. Every once and a while. Then you can return to your TMZ musings.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Stop With the "Top 100s" Rolling Stone Magazine
While chatting with my brother, among other things, about the Italian national soccer team (which requires an entire post in itself), it came up that Rolling Stone has gone from a fairly ubiquitous standard of music criticism to nothing more than a "who's doing what" in the top 40 world, redundant artist and album reviews, and political banter that is so far left it leaps off the party spectrum into it's own self contained world. Don't get me wrong, I still subscribe to the magazine purely because every now and then a truly interesting article rolls (no pun intended) along. But often I find myself flipping through the pages in a matter of 20 minutes because I can hardly be expected to waste my time reading the contents within (A recent magazine with the Eagles on the cover? Give me a break. I can't decide which sucks more: the band or "Hotel California.")
What really seemed to bother us, though, was the annual publishing of the magazine's "top 100 list of *insert some bullshit music category here*." Now I know that it would be impossible for RS to compile a list of top 100 anything and please every reader. There are too many options out there and too many preferences and opinions. But honestly, sometimes the rankings are just so unjustified one can't help but become irked.
I'm going to overlook the fact that the magazine has traditionally had an undeniable, for lack of a better word, "classic rock" bias. (Greatest Albums=Beatles, Dylan, Stones according to Nov. 2003 issue.) Let's just focus on the latest issue's Top 100 Greatest Guitar Songs of All Time (Issue 1054 June 12, 2008). Right off the bat I thought the very category was stupid. Guitar songs? So that means any song that features a guitar is eligible? Or does the song have to have substantial guitar parts? What the hell is your criteria for defining a "guitar song?" I guess I'm going to assume 100 best guitar playings in a song. Fine. And some of your picks are great. Zep's "Whole Lotta Love" is an iconic guitar riff (I would even argue putting it ahead of "Stairway" in this particular category because "Stairway" is more "guitar solo" combined with some great opening Bonham synth and Plant vocals). "Smells Like Teen Spirit" brought modern guitarists back on the respected level of their predecessors (I could argue #10 is a bit high, but I doesn't necessarily bother me it's that high).
My real problem, then comes, with some bullshit choices like "Seven Nation Army." Maybe it's my bias towards the fact that I don't think The White Stripes are the most amazing band to hit the modern music scene, nor do I think Jack White is a revolutionary guitarist (putting him on the cover alongside Mick and Keith was beyond me). But I refuse to acknowledge the song is a better guitar song than say "Black Magic Woman" or "La Grange," both of which, at # 39 and #74 respectively, I deem exceedingly low. Oh and the real kicker--John Mayer on the list. Am I even supposed to know the song "Gravity?" And it's ahead of "I Love Rock n Roll?" I don't even like Joan Jett, but her song is way more of a guitar staple than anything Mayer puts out. The fact that he was included as a guitar hero worthy of interview along with greats like Page, Santana, and B.B. King is either RS's way of trying to show they aren't purely classic rock biased, or their way of dumbing down their judgment to fit a more expansive poptastic audience. Hell, you might as well have included Jack Johnson in the mix.
My brother pointed me to these many "best of" lists put out by Mojo. I won't make any direct comparisons between them and RS. First, there is no category entitled "best guitar songs of all time" because it is a lamely vague category. Furthermore many of the lists were compiled some 5-10 years ago, making them a bit outdated (even if you think the music scene isn't what it used to be, you inevitably have to take into account all music-to-date when making a "best of" list). It's just interesting to get a non-RS perspective on some of these lists. Sure I've got my issues with Mojo--Bob Dylan as #11 on the greatest singers is laughable as the man has a god awful voice and is a songwriter above all else, not a singer. Zeppelin isn't even in their 20 greatest guitar albums of all time (blasphemy as far as I'm concerned). But what you do see is, in my opinion, a much wider spectrum of artists. Take for instance, the "100 Records that Changed the World." Mojo has everything from the Beatles to Kraftwerk (amazing choice by the way) to a compilation album of folk songs.
You would never see such variety, especially in the top 10 spots, from RS. They're too quick to regurgitate the same songs and artists because ultimately these ranking lists are a good way for them to do minimal writing and generate increased readership (who can resist seeing who is ranked above whom in any list). So ultimately as I begin to tire of writing, I urge Rolling Stone to just stop with the drivel, because I only have so much time in the week to not read it's articles.
Please note, this is what NOT to see on the cover of a RS mag.
What really seemed to bother us, though, was the annual publishing of the magazine's "top 100 list of *insert some bullshit music category here*." Now I know that it would be impossible for RS to compile a list of top 100 anything and please every reader. There are too many options out there and too many preferences and opinions. But honestly, sometimes the rankings are just so unjustified one can't help but become irked.
I'm going to overlook the fact that the magazine has traditionally had an undeniable, for lack of a better word, "classic rock" bias. (Greatest Albums=Beatles, Dylan, Stones according to Nov. 2003 issue.) Let's just focus on the latest issue's Top 100 Greatest Guitar Songs of All Time (Issue 1054 June 12, 2008). Right off the bat I thought the very category was stupid. Guitar songs? So that means any song that features a guitar is eligible? Or does the song have to have substantial guitar parts? What the hell is your criteria for defining a "guitar song?" I guess I'm going to assume 100 best guitar playings in a song. Fine. And some of your picks are great. Zep's "Whole Lotta Love" is an iconic guitar riff (I would even argue putting it ahead of "Stairway" in this particular category because "Stairway" is more "guitar solo" combined with some great opening Bonham synth and Plant vocals). "Smells Like Teen Spirit" brought modern guitarists back on the respected level of their predecessors (I could argue #10 is a bit high, but I doesn't necessarily bother me it's that high).
My real problem, then comes, with some bullshit choices like "Seven Nation Army." Maybe it's my bias towards the fact that I don't think The White Stripes are the most amazing band to hit the modern music scene, nor do I think Jack White is a revolutionary guitarist (putting him on the cover alongside Mick and Keith was beyond me). But I refuse to acknowledge the song is a better guitar song than say "Black Magic Woman" or "La Grange," both of which, at # 39 and #74 respectively, I deem exceedingly low. Oh and the real kicker--John Mayer on the list. Am I even supposed to know the song "Gravity?" And it's ahead of "I Love Rock n Roll?" I don't even like Joan Jett, but her song is way more of a guitar staple than anything Mayer puts out. The fact that he was included as a guitar hero worthy of interview along with greats like Page, Santana, and B.B. King is either RS's way of trying to show they aren't purely classic rock biased, or their way of dumbing down their judgment to fit a more expansive poptastic audience. Hell, you might as well have included Jack Johnson in the mix.
My brother pointed me to these many "best of" lists put out by Mojo. I won't make any direct comparisons between them and RS. First, there is no category entitled "best guitar songs of all time" because it is a lamely vague category. Furthermore many of the lists were compiled some 5-10 years ago, making them a bit outdated (even if you think the music scene isn't what it used to be, you inevitably have to take into account all music-to-date when making a "best of" list). It's just interesting to get a non-RS perspective on some of these lists. Sure I've got my issues with Mojo--Bob Dylan as #11 on the greatest singers is laughable as the man has a god awful voice and is a songwriter above all else, not a singer. Zeppelin isn't even in their 20 greatest guitar albums of all time (blasphemy as far as I'm concerned). But what you do see is, in my opinion, a much wider spectrum of artists. Take for instance, the "100 Records that Changed the World." Mojo has everything from the Beatles to Kraftwerk (amazing choice by the way) to a compilation album of folk songs.
You would never see such variety, especially in the top 10 spots, from RS. They're too quick to regurgitate the same songs and artists because ultimately these ranking lists are a good way for them to do minimal writing and generate increased readership (who can resist seeing who is ranked above whom in any list). So ultimately as I begin to tire of writing, I urge Rolling Stone to just stop with the drivel, because I only have so much time in the week to not read it's articles.
Please note, this is what NOT to see on the cover of a RS mag.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Try and Stop Me From Not Messing With the Zohan
Seriously. How could I not mess with the premise of this movie. Either my days as a vibrant youth laughing at the silly antics of Billy Madison (I'll tell you who, it was that damn Sasquatch) have long come to an end, or Adam Sandler has gotten severely lazy in his attempts at humor. Speaking of outgrowing days of youth, hasn't Sandler outgrown his? I honestly think he might even be reverting in his development as a comedian with this latest piece of a movie.
I'll admit, I haven't seen the movie so my issues with it could all be the cause of terrible marketing, but I utterly and miserably fail to see the humor in an Israeli commando turned hair dresser. He smacks some dude on the street with his feet--not funny. He gives some kid the sleeper--not funny. He swims like a dolphin--I can't even say for sure if that was meant to be funny...but it isn't. No doubt Rob Schneider will uncharacteristically play a foreign guy with a bad accent in a totally unprecedented and awe-inspiring move. Adam, please stop relying on infantile sight gags and over-the-top stereotypes to draw laughs. You've been around way to long to keep degrading yourself like this.
I can only hope that this movie tanks at the box office but judging from past performances of seemingly bad movies (insert any recent Will Ferrell title here), America should prove to arrive in hoards to Zohan and laugh heartily while shoveling boat loads of popcorn in its face.
I'll admit, I haven't seen the movie so my issues with it could all be the cause of terrible marketing, but I utterly and miserably fail to see the humor in an Israeli commando turned hair dresser. He smacks some dude on the street with his feet--not funny. He gives some kid the sleeper--not funny. He swims like a dolphin--I can't even say for sure if that was meant to be funny...but it isn't. No doubt Rob Schneider will uncharacteristically play a foreign guy with a bad accent in a totally unprecedented and awe-inspiring move. Adam, please stop relying on infantile sight gags and over-the-top stereotypes to draw laughs. You've been around way to long to keep degrading yourself like this.
I can only hope that this movie tanks at the box office but judging from past performances of seemingly bad movies (insert any recent Will Ferrell title here), America should prove to arrive in hoards to Zohan and laugh heartily while shoveling boat loads of popcorn in its face.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Fake Carl's Jr. Can Kiss My Real Ass
I've done it before. There is no doubt I will do it again. But I must, with no reservations, rant about the pedantic, trite, and all around poorly-conceived advertising campaigns that are Carl's Jr. I'm not even sure where to begin with this one.
Usually I'm prone to gripe about the consistently overly-sexualized nature of the ads--we got it, sex sells...but you're selling a freakin' burger here. Unless I'm bringing it into bed with me or have some weird fetish, I'm not sure a romp with my lunch is the thing I should be thinking about when deciding whether to attend the closest fine Carl's Jr. establishment.
This time, though, they've changed the way they convey their message completely. No sex. No dumbing down your target demographic of young males. And under normal circumstances I would commend them. Except that the newest campaign becomes another purely inane attempt of Mendelsohn/Zien to develop a creative advertisement. In Carl's Jr.'s latest escapade, they have "conceptualized" the idea to create a fake restaurant, with actors, and set people up (like a hidden camera show) by selling them what they think is a gourmet $16 burger when in actuality they are eating a delectable $3 Carl's Jr. beauty.
My complaints with this doozy run rampant. The spots (which haven't been released yet but can be viewed in their entirety at the above linked website) look anything but "hidden camera, reality" filming. The production quality looks fairly high quality (one "target" even notes how well lit the restaurant is). Worse to me, however, is the fact that even the supposedly unsuspecting targets seem to be actors too. Anyone that has ate Carl's Jr. would recognize their burgers by the repulsive lathering of special sauce--obviously needed to cover up the poor taste of the beef. One target even goes as far as to make a direct comparison to the fake burger and Carl's Jr., noting how much better the "fake" burger is than Carl's Jr. You've got to be shitting me. SHITTING ME. I would argue that the overwhelming majority of people who would make a comparison to a gourmet burger and fast food burger would hardly name Carl's Jr. off the top of their head. McDonald's, or even Burger King, would inherently come to mind first as the brand leaders. The entire thing just seems like a lame attempt to boost perception of product quality by lying and saying the unknowing targets are having real reactions. (It should be noted this same topic came up in May 26, 2008 issue of AdWeek and they explain that some people were even "asked" to post-dub reactions as admitted by co-creative director Mick DiMaria). Shame on you Carl's Jr. Shame on you for not only decieving viewers by tricking them into thinking you have quality products. But shame on you for using an advertising agency that can't even generate creative output. This tired concept has been done time and time again--recently within the fast food industry itself. Burger King JUST did this with the "We Don't Sell the Whopper" hidden camera spots (see below) and now Pizza Hut with the exact same idea of a fake restaurant selling Pizza Hut pasta.
So ultimately, as this castigation is beginning to exhaust me, I will finish by reiterating how much I hate Carl's Jr., and even more so their advertising. And come on. Wouldn't we all be pissed if we got tricked into paying $16 for nothing more than the Jr.
Usually I'm prone to gripe about the consistently overly-sexualized nature of the ads--we got it, sex sells...but you're selling a freakin' burger here. Unless I'm bringing it into bed with me or have some weird fetish, I'm not sure a romp with my lunch is the thing I should be thinking about when deciding whether to attend the closest fine Carl's Jr. establishment.
This time, though, they've changed the way they convey their message completely. No sex. No dumbing down your target demographic of young males. And under normal circumstances I would commend them. Except that the newest campaign becomes another purely inane attempt of Mendelsohn/Zien to develop a creative advertisement. In Carl's Jr.'s latest escapade, they have "conceptualized" the idea to create a fake restaurant, with actors, and set people up (like a hidden camera show) by selling them what they think is a gourmet $16 burger when in actuality they are eating a delectable $3 Carl's Jr. beauty.
My complaints with this doozy run rampant. The spots (which haven't been released yet but can be viewed in their entirety at the above linked website) look anything but "hidden camera, reality" filming. The production quality looks fairly high quality (one "target" even notes how well lit the restaurant is). Worse to me, however, is the fact that even the supposedly unsuspecting targets seem to be actors too. Anyone that has ate Carl's Jr. would recognize their burgers by the repulsive lathering of special sauce--obviously needed to cover up the poor taste of the beef. One target even goes as far as to make a direct comparison to the fake burger and Carl's Jr., noting how much better the "fake" burger is than Carl's Jr. You've got to be shitting me. SHITTING ME. I would argue that the overwhelming majority of people who would make a comparison to a gourmet burger and fast food burger would hardly name Carl's Jr. off the top of their head. McDonald's, or even Burger King, would inherently come to mind first as the brand leaders. The entire thing just seems like a lame attempt to boost perception of product quality by lying and saying the unknowing targets are having real reactions. (It should be noted this same topic came up in May 26, 2008 issue of AdWeek and they explain that some people were even "asked" to post-dub reactions as admitted by co-creative director Mick DiMaria). Shame on you Carl's Jr. Shame on you for not only decieving viewers by tricking them into thinking you have quality products. But shame on you for using an advertising agency that can't even generate creative output. This tired concept has been done time and time again--recently within the fast food industry itself. Burger King JUST did this with the "We Don't Sell the Whopper" hidden camera spots (see below) and now Pizza Hut with the exact same idea of a fake restaurant selling Pizza Hut pasta.
So ultimately, as this castigation is beginning to exhaust me, I will finish by reiterating how much I hate Carl's Jr., and even more so their advertising. And come on. Wouldn't we all be pissed if we got tricked into paying $16 for nothing more than the Jr.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Coachella 2008
I've lived in Southern California for 5 years and finally decided to put my foot down and go to Coachella in Indio. All I can say is that it was one of the single greatest experiences of my life. The music was amazing, the weather was good (I really never could complain about the heat even though we were in the middle of the desert), and I got to share the experience with some of the best people.
While I originally wanted to go to see some of the headliners, I found myself being overwhelmingly being drawn to the electronic tent. Don't get me wrong, Prince was amazing, but the Sahara tent was just rocking so hard all day and night I kept wanting to go back. That being said, Kraftwerk put on a show that both showcased their trailblazing music and used visuals that just blew my mind. And when the festival got dark, it was a whole different world. The psychedelic art could have kept me entertained for hours in itself, but combined with the music at night, it really did create for a scene that can't be explained.
So next year, come one come all, because the blurb I write here (and the second hand video footage below) can not do the festival justice.
Sasha and Digweed:
While I originally wanted to go to see some of the headliners, I found myself being overwhelmingly being drawn to the electronic tent. Don't get me wrong, Prince was amazing, but the Sahara tent was just rocking so hard all day and night I kept wanting to go back. That being said, Kraftwerk put on a show that both showcased their trailblazing music and used visuals that just blew my mind. And when the festival got dark, it was a whole different world. The psychedelic art could have kept me entertained for hours in itself, but combined with the music at night, it really did create for a scene that can't be explained.
So next year, come one come all, because the blurb I write here (and the second hand video footage below) can not do the festival justice.
Sasha and Digweed:
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Do the Test
This is amazing. I'm not even ashamed to say I failed this test miserably. If the below video doesn't play, click here.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Geography Fun
I was tuned onto this geography game by a co-worker a few weeks ago, and despite its simplicity, I was soon quite addicted to it. The game is pretty straight forward. A geographical place (usually a city or major tourist site) pops up on the bottom of the screen The player then needs to click the cursor in the space on the provided map that coincides with the place's location as quickly as possible. A score is produced based on accuracy and speed.
What makes the game particularly fun is that the map is relatively small and as you are asked to locate spots in more "clustered" areas (such as Western Europe), it takes some skill to pinpoint the right spot . I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in global geography but this game becomes pretty challenging, especially towards the last levels. I have always thought geography was an underrated subject in the American school system, and I think that many who play this game will realize how little they know about areas outside of the Western World. I for one have a hell of a time locating Russian and Australian cities.
Check this game out, its a good way to brush up on your world knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
