FCC seen easing media ownership rules Tuesday

(Add Comment) |

2 Kudos

Monday, September 01, 2008

Its been a long ass time...
Current mood:

animated
Category: Blogging

Hey my party peoples! long time no write. been busy graduating form school and looking and then finding a crap job. (will be looking onlin eall day tomarrow and then walk around this week).

been a little down since I was going to go to my cousins wedding in Iowa but last minute we needed someone to watch our 3 dogs so I was left behind. which awas ok since I got to recharge my batteries, but my buds weere all busy so I was a bit lonely.

and I started posted dorky ramblings of myself on youtube. then I re-made a myspace page for my side business I'm trrying to make happen, so we shall see what happens this week.

I may be getting tickets to see the daily show in st.paul this week, but not likely. BTW the theatre it is to be in is a part of the rival music business school of the one I went to. (I went to IPR on Minneapolis, the other one was formerlly Music tech in St. Paul; which used to be a part on IPR , but anywho). The part about that is the building used to be in the childrens scinces musem where the dinosaurs were , so when I looked at the school, I couldn't take it seriously because I remember being there when I waws 4. Its a good enouhg school, but I liked the onther option better, for what I needed.

ok I'm rambling.

thats it for now....

Currently listening:
Beautiful Freak
By Eels
Release date: 1996-08-13

1:30 PM

(Add Comment) |

2 Kudos

Sunday, April 27, 2008

I’m MORPHING!
Category: Life

MyHeritage: Celebrity Morph - Geneology - Family images

11:29 PM

(Add Comment) |

2 Kudos

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

F.C.C. Reshapes Rules Limiting Media Industry

F.C.C. Reshapes Rules Limiting Media Industry

Published: December 19, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission approved two new rules on Tuesday that are likely to reshape the nation's media landscape by setting new parameters for the size and scope of the largest news and cable companies.
Skip to next paragraph
Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg News

Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the commission.
Enlarge This Image
Gerald Herbert/Associated Press

Protesters at a Federal Communications Commission hearing Tuesday in Washington.

One rule would tighten the reins on the cable television industry. By stipulating that no one company can control more than 30 percent of the market, the rule introduces fresh regulation to an industry where there has been little of it, angering both the cable industry and Republican commissioners, who favor a free-market approach.

The other rule, which gives owners of newspapers more leeway to buy radio and television stations in the largest cities, is a step in the direction of deregulation. It is intended to help the newspaper industry, which is suffering from dwindling advertising revenue, and to recognize that the historical conditions that gave rise to cross-ownership restrictions have changed, now that more news sources are available on the Internet and cable television.

But the change drew criticism from newspaper executives, who said it was too modest to be meaningful, and from prominent lawmakers and commission Democrats, who called it a Christmas present to the nation's largest conglomerates.

Both rules are certain to be reviewed by courts in the coming months. On Capitol Hill, some lawmakers said Tuesday that they would try to undo the rule about the newspaper industry.

Nevertheless, the votes were an important political victory for Kevin J. Martin, the F.C.C. chairman, who presided over a contentious meeting at which he re-established his control over the deeply divided agency. Mr. Martin had suffered a sharp setback three weeks ago when he was unable to find two commissioners to support a plan to regulate cable television more tightly.

The decisions were a blow to Comcast Communications, the nation's largest cable company, which has grown substantially over the last decade through a series of acquisitions and will now be unable to buy more cable companies unless it can get the order overturned by a court.

By taking Comcast out of any bidding, the new rule was also a setback to smaller cable operators thinking of selling to other companies.

As for the relaxation of the newspaper-broadcast rule, telecommunications lawyers said it could pave the way for Rupert Murdoch to win permanent waivers to control two television stations in New York, as well as The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal.

In one 3-to-2 vote on Tuesday, Mr. Martin sided with the agency's two other Republicans to relax the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules in the nation's 20 largest markets. Under the new rule, a company can own both a newspaper and either a television or radio station in those markets as long as there remain at least eight other independent sources of news. If it is a television station, the rule requires that it cannot be one of the top four.

Mr. Martin said that the change was a modest, though vital step toward assisting the newspaper industry, which is struggling financially as advertising and readership migrates rapidly to the Internet. "We cannot ignore the fact the media marketplace is considerably different than when the media ownership rule was put in place more than 30 years ago," he said.

In a second 3-to-2 vote, Mr. Martin joined with the two Democratic commissioners to impose a limit to prevent Comcast, which controls nearly 30 percent of the market, from getting larger. Mr. Martin has been critical of the cable television industry for raising rates faster than the rate of inflation and for failing to offer consumers enough lower-price choices in subscription packages.

In a series of dissents, the commissioners took issue with Mr. Martin's assessments.

"In the final analysis," said Michael J. Copps, a Democratic commissioner who has led a nationwide effort against relaxing the media ownership rules, "the real winners today are businesses that are in many cases quite healthy, and the real losers are going to be all of us who depend on the news media to learn what's happening in our communities and to keep an eye on local government."

Robert M. McDowell, a Republican commissioner, was sharply critical of the cable restrictions.

"The cap is out of date, is bad public policy and is not needed in today's public market," he said. He called the cable rule "archaic industrial policy" that would surely be struck down by an appeals court, as a similar rule was six years ago.

Although Mr. Martin appears to have won a high-stakes battle over some of the most significant policy decisions of his tenure, he has expended significant political capital and made political enemies of powerful industry groups and influential lawmakers.

For opposite reasons, both rules approved on Tuesday were sharply criticized by industry. John F, Sturm, president of the Newspaper Association of America, called the new cross-ownership rule "a baby step in the actions needed to maintain the vitality of local news, in print and over-the-air, in all communities across the nation." Mr. Sturm said he favored eliminating the cross-ownership ban completely.

On the other hand, the cable television industry accused Mr. Martin of once again imposing unfair regulations on it.

David L. Cohen, an executive vice president of Comcast, said it was "perverse to see the commission approving huge mergers by the Bell companies while now telling cable companies, who compete toe-to-toe with the Bells, that they may not also grow larger and achieve the same efficiencies."

Over the last year, the commission has approved a series of proposals over the objections of the cable television industry. Last December, it approved a measure to force municipalities to accelerate the local approval process for the telephone companies to offer video services in new markets. And two months ago, it struck down thousands of contracts that gave individual cable companies exclusive rights to provide service to apartment buildings.

Consumer groups, which have long pushed for tighter cable television regulation, criticized the change in newspaper cross-ownership. "We're disappointed that he relaxed the rule," said Gene Kimmelman, the senior lobbyist in Washington for Consumers Union. "But the new language creating a high hurdle in the small markets, if appropriately implemented, could significantly limit the number of mergers that get through, minimizing the danger to competition and diversity in local news."

A significant chorus in Congress has been deeply critical of Mr. Martin and repeatedly requested that he delay action on the media ownership vote. On Monday, 25 senators led by Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, sent Mr. Martin a letter in which they vowed to take legislative action to revoke any new rule or nullify Tuesday's vote.

But in a letter to lawmakers from Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, the administration expressed support for Mr. Martin.

Both the newspaper-broadcast ownership rule and the cable rule are certain to be reviewed by federal appeals courts. Three years ago, a federal appeals panel in Philadelphia struck down a series of deregulatory measures proposed by Mr. Martin's predecessor, Michael K. Powell , including one that loosened the cross-ownership rules.

4:54 PM

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Real Value of music

David Byrne.
Photo: James Day
FEATURE
David Byrne and Thom Yorke on the Real Value of Music

Full disclosure: I used to own a record label. That label, Luaka Bop, still exists, though I'm no longer involved in running it. My last record came out through Nonesuch, a subsidiary of the Warner Music Group empire. I have also released music through indie labels like Thrill Jockey, and I have pressed up CDs and sold them on tour. I tour every few years, and I don't see it as simply a loss leader for CD sales. So I have seen this business from both sides. I've made money, and I've been ripped off. I've had creative freedom, and I've been pressured to make hits. I have dealt with diva behavior from crazy musicians, and I have seen genius records by wonderful artists get completely ignored. I love music. I always will. It saved my life, and I bet I'm not the only one who can say that.
Bonus Track: "Ex Guru"
"Here's the 'cover' I did of the Fiery Furnaces tune — the words in the first half are theirs and in the last two verses they are mine. Kind of a new way to collaborate."
— David Byrne

Courtesy Thrill Jockey Records

What is called the music business today, however, is not the business of producing music. At some point it became the business of selling CDs in plastic cases, and that business will soon be over. But that's not bad news for music, and it's certainly not bad news for musicians. Indeed, with all the ways to reach an audience, there have never been more opportunities for artists.

Where are things going? Well, some people's charts look like this:

Some see this picture as a dire trend. The fact that Radiohead debuted its latest album online and Madonna defected from Warner Bros. to Live Nation, a concert promoter, is held to signal the end of the music business as we know it. Actually, these are just two examples of how musicians are increasingly able to work outside of the traditional label relationship. There is no one single way of doing business these days. There are, in fact, six viable models by my count. That variety is good for artists; it gives them more ways to get paid and make a living. And it's good for audiences, too, who will have more — and more interesting — music to listen to. Let's step back and get some perspective.

What is music?
First, a definition of terms. What is it we're talking about here? What exactly is being bought and sold? In the past, music was something you heard and experienced — it was as much a social event as a purely musical one. Before recording technology existed, you could not separate music from its social context. Epic songs and ballads, troubadours, courtly entertainments, church music, shamanic chants, pub sing-alongs, ceremonial music, military music, dance music — it was pretty much all tied to specific social functions. It was communal and often utilitarian. You couldn't take it home, copy it, sell it as a commodity (except as sheet music, but that's not music), or even hear it again. Music was an experience, intimately married to your life. You could pay to hear music, but after you did, it was over, gone — a memory.

Technology changed all that in the 20th century. Music — or its recorded artifact, at least — became a product, a thing that could be bought, sold, traded, and replayed endlessly in any context. This upended the economics of music, but our human instincts remained intact. I spend plenty of time with buds in my ears listening to recorded music, but I still get out to stand in a crowd with an audience. I sing to myself, and, yes, I play an instrument (not always well).

We'll always want to use music as part of our social fabric: to congregate at concerts and in bars, even if the sound sucks; to pass music from hand to hand (or via the Internet) as a form of social currency; to build temples where only "our kind of people" can hear music (opera houses and symphony halls); to want to know more about our favorite bards — their love lives, their clothes, their political beliefs. This betrays an eternal urge to have a larger context beyond a piece of plastic. One might say this urge is part of our genetic makeup.

All this is what we talk about when we talk about music.

All of it.

What do record companies do?
Or, more precisely, what did they do?

* Fund recording sessions
* Manufacture product
* Distribute product
* Market product
* Loan and advance money for expenses (tours, videos, hair and makeup)
* Advise and guide artists on their careers and recordings
* Handle the accounting

This was the system that evolved over the past century to market the product, which is to say the container — vinyl, tape, or disc — that carried the music. (Calling the product music is like selling a shopping cart and calling it groceries.) But many things have changed in the past decade that reduce the value of these services to artists.

For example:

Recording costs have declined to almost zero. Artists used to need the labels to bankroll their recordings. Most simply didn't have the $15,000 (minimum) necessary to rent a professional studio and pay an engineer and a producer. For many artists — maybe even most — this is no longer the case. Now an album can be made on the same laptop you use to check email.

Manufacturing and distribution costs are approaching zero. There used to be a break-even point below which it was impractical to distribute a recording. With LPs and CDs, there were base manufacturing costs, printing costs, shipping, and so on. It paid — in fact, it was essential — to sell in volume, because that's how many of those costs got amortized. No more: Digital distribution is pretty much free. It's no cheaper per unit to distribute a million copies than a hundred.

Touring is not just promotion. Live performances used to be seen as essentially a way to publicize a new release — a means to an end, not an end in itself. Bands would go into debt in order to tour, anticipating that they'd recover their losses later through increased record sales. This, to be blunt, is all wrong. It's backward. Performing is a thing in itself, a distinct skill, different from making recordings. And for those who can do it, it's a way to make a living.

So with all these changes, what happens to the labels? Some will survive. Nonesuch, where I've done several albums, has thrived under Warner Music Group ownership by operating with a lean staff of 12 and staying focused on talent. "Artists like Wilco, Philip Glass, k.d. lang, and others have sold more here than when they were at so-called major labels," Bob Hurwitz, president of Nonesuch, told me, "even during a time of decline."
David Byrne in Conversation with Brian Eno
"How the f--k can we get out of this?"

"Cool Tools"

"The people who know how to do this are the ones you fired ..."

"When was the last time you had dealings with a record company?"

But some labels will disappear, as the roles they used to play get chopped up and delivered by more thrifty services. In a recent conversation I had with Brian Eno (who is producing the next Coldplay album and writing with U2), he was enthusiastic about I Think Music — an online network of indie bands, fans, and stores — and pessimistic about the future of traditional labels. "Structurally, they're much too large," Eno said. "And they're entirely on the defensive now. The only idea they have is that they can give you a big advance — which is still attractive to a lot of young bands just starting out. But that's all they represent now: capital."

So where do artists fit into this changing landscape? We find new options, new models.

The six possibilities

Where there was one, now there are six: Six possible music distribution models, ranging from one in which the artist is pretty much hands-off to one where the artist does nearly everything. Not surprisingly, the more involved the artist is, the more he or she can often make per unit sold. The totally DIY model is certainly not for everyone — but that's the point. Now there's choice.

1. At one end of the scale is the 360, or equity, deal, where every aspect of the artist's career is handled by producers, promoters, marketing people, and managers. The idea is that you can achieve wide saturation and sales, boosted by a hardworking machine that stands to benefit from everything you do. The artist becomes a brand, owned and operated by the label, and in theory this gives the company a long-term perspective and interest in nurturing that artist's career.

Pussycat Dolls, Korn, and Robbie Williams have made arrangements like this, selling equity in everything they touch. The T-shirts, the records, the concerts, the videos, the BBQ sauce. The artist often gets a lot of money up front. But I doubt that creative decisions will be left in the artist's hands. As a general rule, as the cash comes in, creative control goes out. The equity partner simply has too much at stake.

This is the kind of deal Madonna just made with Live Nation. For a reported $120 million, the company — which until now has mainly produced and promoted concerts — will get a piece of both her concert revenue and her music sales. I, for one, would not want to be beholden to Live Nation — a spinoff of Clear Channel, the radio conglomerate that turned the US airwaves into pabulum. But Madge is a smart cookie; she's always been adept at controlling her own stuff, so we'll see.

2. Next is what I'll call the standard distribution deal. This is more or less what I lived with for many years as a member of the Talking Heads. The record company bankrolls the recording and handles the manufacturing, distribution, press, and promotion. The artist gets a royalty percentage after all those other costs are repaid. The label, in this scenario, owns the copyright to the recording. Forever.

There's another catch with this kind of arrangement: The typical pop star often lives in debt to their record company and a host of other entities, and if they hit a dry spell they can go broke. Michael Jackson, MC Hammer, TLC — the danger of debt and overextension is an old story.

Obviously, the cost of these services, along with the record company's overhead, accounts for a big part of CD prices. You, the buyer, are paying for all those trucks, those CD plants, those warehouses, and all that plastic. Theoretically, as many of these costs go away, they should no longer be charged to the consumer — or the artist.

Sure, many of the services traditionally provided by record labels under the standard deal are now being farmed out. Press and publicity, digital marketing, graphic design — all are often handled by smaller, independent firms. But he who pays the piper calls the tune. If the record company pays the subcontractors, then the record company ultimately decides who or what has priority. If they "don't hear a single," they can tell you your record isn't coming out.

So what happens when online sales eliminate many of these expenses? Look at iTunes: $10 for a "CD" download reflects the cost savings of digital distribution, which seems fair — at first. It's certainly better for consumers. But after Apple takes its 30 percent, the royalty percentage is applied and the artist — surprise! — is no better off.

Not coincidentally, the issues here are similar to those in the recent Hollywood writers' strike. Will recording artists band together and go on strike?

3. The license deal is similar to the standard deal, except in this case the artist retains the copyrights and ownership of the master recording. The right to exploit that property is granted to a label for a limited period of time — usually seven years. After that, the rights to license to TV shows, commercials, and the like revert to the artist. If the members of the Talking Heads held the master rights to our catalog today, we'd earn twice as much in licensing as we do now — and that's where artists like me derive much of our income. If a band has made a record itself and doesn't need creative or financial help, this model is worth looking at. It allows for a little more creative freedom, since you get less interference from the guys in the big suits. The flip side is that because the label doesn't own the master, it may invest less in making the release a success.

David Byrne in conversation with Mac McCaughan from Merge Records.
"How could an indie label handle a release the size of Arcade Fire's second record?"

"How do emerging acts survive?"

"Major labels aren't doing well because they put out terrible records for years and years and kept raising the price of those terrible records and finally people were like, 'Screw you.'"

But with the right label, the license deal can be a great way to go. This is the relationship Arcade Fire has with Merge Records, an indie label that's done great for its band by avoiding the big-spending, big-label approach. "Part of it is just being realistic and not putting yourself in the hole," Merge cofounder Mac McCaughan says. "The bands we work with, we never recommend that they make videos. I like videos, but they don't sell a lot of records. What really sells records is touring — and artists can actually make money on the tour itself if they keep their budgets down."

4. Then there's the profit-sharing deal. I did something like this with my album Lead Us Not Into Temptation in 2003. I got a minimal advance from the label, Thrill Jockey, since the recording costs were covered by a movie soundtrack budget, and we shared the profits from day one. I retained ownership of the master. Thrill Jockey does some marketing and press. I may or may not have sold as many records as I would have with a larger company, but in the end I took home a greater share of each unit sold.

5. In the manufacturing and distribution deal, the artist does everything except, well, manufacture and distribute the product. Often the companies that do these kinds of deals also offer other services, like marketing. But given the numbers, they don't stand to make as much, so their incentive here is limited. Big record labels traditionally don't make M&D deals.

David Byrne in conversation with Michael Hausman.
"We weren't competing with Madonna, Beyonce or Springsteen, because they weren't doing it."

"There's a way for music to have a life of its own and turn into something bigger ..."

"The labels aren't set up for enlightened, long-range thinking. That's what a good manager should be doing."

In this scenario, the artist gets absolute creative control, but it's a bigger gamble. Aimee Mann does this, and it works really well for her. "A lot of artists don't realize how much more money they could make by retaining ownership and licensing directly," Mann's manager, Michael Hausman, told me. "If it's done properly, you get paid quickly, and you get paid again and again. That's a great source of income."

6. Finally, at the far end of the scale, is the self-distribution model, where the music is self-produced, self-written, self-played, and self-marketed. CDs are sold at gigs and through a Web site. Promotion is a MySpace page. The band buys or leases a server to handle download sales. Within the limits of what they can afford, the artists have complete creative control. In practice, especially for emerging artists, that can mean freedom without resources — a pretty abstract sort of independence. For those who plan to take their material on the road and play it live, the financial constraints cut even deeper. Backup orchestras, massive video screens and sets, and weird high tech lights don't come cheap.

David Byrne in conversation with Radiohead's managers, Bryce Edge and Chris Hufford (Courtyard Management).
"... how it proliferated around the world with such ridiculous speed"

"You've had years of experience with the press ... missing the point."

"It actually physically blew up and we had to replace it ..."

"It's just an art band from Oxford having a bit of a laugh."

"Johnny's doing his gay boy sort of pretty look"

Radiohead adopted this DIY model to sell In Rainbows online — and then went a step further by letting fans name their own price for the download. They weren't the first to do this — Issa (formerly known as Jane Siberry) pioneered the pay-what-you-will model a few years ago — but Radiohead's move was much higher profile. It may be less risky for them, but it's a clear sign of real changes afoot. As one of Radiohead's managers, Bryce Edge, told me, "The industry reacted like the end was nigh. They've devalued music, giving it away for nothing.' Which wasn't true: We asked people to value it, which is very different semantics to me."

At this end of the spectrum, the artist stands to receive the largest percentage of income from sales per unit — sales of anything. A larger percentage of fewer sales, most likely, but not always. Artists doing it for themselves can actually make more money than the massive pop star, even though the sales numbers may seem minuscule by comparison. Of course, not everyone is as smart as those nerdy Radiohead boys. Pete Doherty probably should not be handed the steering wheel.

Freedom versus pragmatism
These models are not absolute. They can morph and evolve. Hausman and Mann took the total DIY route at first, getting money orders and sending out CDs in Express Mail envelopes; later on they licensed the records to distributors. And things change over time. In the future, we will see more artists take up these various models or mix and match versions of them. For existing and emerging artists — who read about the music business going down the drain — this is actually a great time, full of options and possibilities. The future of music as a career is wide open.

Many who take the cash up front will never know that long-range thinking might have been wiser. Mega pop artists will still need that mighty push and marketing effort for a new release that only traditional record companies can provide. For others, what we now call a record label could be replaced by a small company that funnels income and invoices from the various entities and keeps the accounts in order. A consortium of midlevel artists could make this model work. United Musicians, the company that Hausman founded, is one such example.

I would personally advise artists to hold on to their publishing rights (well, as much of them as they can). Publishing royalties are how you get paid if someone covers, samples, or licenses your song for a movie or commercial. This, for a songwriter, is your pension plan.

Increasingly, it's possible for artists to hold on to the copyrights for their recordings as well. This guarantees them another lucrative piece of the licensing pie and also gives them the right to exploit their work in mediums to be invented in the future — musical brain implants and the like.

No single model will work for everyone. There's room for all of us. Some artists are the Coke and Pepsi of music, while others are the fine wine — or the funky home-brewed moonshine. And that's fine. I like Rihanna's "Umbrella" and Christina Aguilera's "Ain't No Other Man." Sometimes a corporate soft drink is what you want — just not at the expense of the other thing. In the recent past, it often seemed like all or nothing, but maybe now we won't be forced to choose.

Ultimately, all these scenarios have to satisfy the same human urges: What do we need music to do? How do we visit the land in our head and the place in our heart that music takes us to? Can I get a round-trip ticket?

Really, isn't that what we want to buy, sell, trade, or download?

David Byrne is currently collaborating with Fatboy Slim and Brian Eno. Separately.

Chart Sources: Jupiter Research, Recording Industry Association of America, Almighty Institute of Music Retail, Wired Research

4:53 PM

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Classy.Jamie Lynn Spears says she’s pregnant (I don’t really care, but 16 yr sis of Brittney.)

love that Brittney and jamies mom is writing a book about motherhood. now 2 daughters messed,

Jamie Lynn Spears says she's pregnant

2 hours, 35 minutes ago

Another Spears baby is reportedly on the way — and it's not Britney's.

Jamie Lynn Spears, the 16-year-old "Zoey 101" star and sister of Britney, told OK! magazine that she's pregnant and that the father is her boyfriend, Casey Aldridge.

"It was a shock for both of us, so unexpected," she said. "I was in complete and total shock and so was he."

Spears is 12 weeks along and initially kept the news to herself when she learned of the pregnancy from an at-home test and subsequent doctor visit, she told the celebrity magazine, which hits stands in New York on Wednesday and the rest of the country by Friday.

What message does she want to send to other teens about premarital sex? "I definitely don't think it's something you should do; it's better to wait," she told the magazine. "But I can't be judgmental because it's a position I put myself in."

After she found out from a doctor that she was pregnant, she said, "I took two weeks to myself where I didn't tell anybody."

"Only one of my friends knew because I needed to work out what I would do for myself before I let anyone's opinion affect my decision. Then I told my parents and my friends. I was scared, but I had to do what was right for me," she said.

Spears broke the news to her mother, Lynne, just before Thanksgiving, the magazine reported.

"She was very upset because it wasn't what she expected at all," Spears said. "A week after, she had time to cope with it and became very supportive."

Lynne Spears, already grandmother to Britney's young sons, told the magazine: "I didn't believe it because Jamie Lynn's always been so conscientious. She's never late for her curfew. I was in shock. I mean, this is my 16-year-old baby."

She said her actress daughter, the telegenic heroine of her popular Nickelodeon series, has known Aldridge for years and began dating him in high school.

But in a recent interview with The Associated Press, Spears said she had no steady boyfriend. "I kind of just keep my options open," she said. "I have a bunch of friends that I always hang out with, a bunch of guy friends." She declined to talk about her older sister.

Spears spoke to the AP shortly before Thanksgiving, the day she told OK! she informed her mother about the pregnancy.

Jamie Lynn plans to raise the baby in her home state of Louisiana — "so it can have a normal family life."

Nickelodeon released a statement: "We respect Jamie Lynn's decision to take responsibility in this sensitive and personal situation. We know this is a very difficult time for her and her family, and our primary concern right now is for Jamie Lynn's well being."

A publicist for the network did not immediately respond to phone and e-mail requests for additional comment.

"Zoey 101" is scheduled to conclude its third season Jan. 4 with a cliffhanger episode in which Spears' character must decide whether to leave her fictional Pacific Coast Academy boarding school in California to join her parents in London.

The show is scheduled to resume in February, and its producer, Dan Schneider, has said filming on the fourth season has already been completed.

4:36 PM

(Add Comment) |

1 Kudos

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

FCC seen easing media ownership rules Tuesday

.. END HEADLINE -->

.. BEGIN STORY BODY -->

By Peter Kaplan 39 minutes ago

U.S. communications regulators are expected to approve on Tuesday a plan to loosen media ownership restrictions, despite objections from consumer groups and a threat by some U.S. senators to revoke the action.

A divided Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote on a plan at the commission's monthly meeting that would lift ownership restrictions in the 20 biggest U.S. cities.

The proposal by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is expected to get the support of the two other Republicans on the commission, despite pressure to postpone the decision from Congress and the two Democrats on the FCC.

Existing FCC rules ban ownership of a newspaper, and a television or radio station in the same market, unless the FCC grants a waiver.

On Monday, a group of 25 senators sent a letter to Martin warning they would "move legislation to revoke the rule and nullify the vote" if the FCC goes ahead with the ownership rule changes.

The group, including Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a Democrat from Hawaii, and the panel's top Republican, Ted Stevens of Alaska, said the FCC had not spent enough time studying the issue and seeking input from the public.

Critics of the ownership rule change say easing ownership rules will lead to more consolidation in the industry, eliminate independent voices and degrade local news coverage. They also argue that Martin's proposal contains a loophole that would allow a wave of mergers beyond the top 20 markets.

On November 30, the three Republican commissioners approved an order temporarily waiving the ownership restrictions for media group Tribune Co, allowing the company to proceed with its planned leveraged buy-out.

The FCC on Tuesday also is expected to approve a proposal by Martin that would limit the size U.S. cable operators are allowed reach on a nationwide basis.

That measure would bar cable operators from owning systems that have more than a 30-percent share of U.S. multichannel video subscribers. It is expected to be challenged in court by the cable industry.

Analysts have said the proposal could affect merger deals among large cable operators like Comcast Corp, Charter Communications and Cablevision.

(Reporting by Peter Kaplan, editing by Tim Dobbyn)

5:54 AM

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Peterson leads Vikings to win over Bears

.. END HEADLINE -->

.. BEGIN STORY BODY -->

By DAVE CAMPBELL, AP Sports Writer 45 minutes ago

Brian Urlacher and the Chicago Bears had Adrian Peterson all bottled up, at least until it really counted.

Peterson's 8-yard touchdown run, started by a shoulder-shake to fake Urlacher at the line of scrimmage, sent the Minnesota Vikings to their fifth straight victory, 20-13 over the Bears on Monday night.

The Vikings (8-6) stayed in control of the NFC's last wild-card spot, despite four turnovers and a missed extra point. Tarvaris Jackson threw three interceptions, his first bad game in more than one month.

Peterson finished with two touchdowns and 78 yards on 20 carries, just enough to keep Minnesota in front of New Orleans (7-7) and Washington (7-7) in the conference race.

Coming off the self-declared worst game of his career, just 3 yards on 14 carries against the San Francisco 49ers, Peterson had more trouble finding room to run for the better part of three quarters.

But he came through when it counted, plunging through the line for a yard out to pull Minnesota within 13-12 before a low snap by Cullen Loeffler preceded a missed extra point by Ryan Longwell.

Then in the fourth quarter, with quarterback Tarvaris Jackson sidelined temporarily by a cramp in his calf muscle, Peterson added another clip to his rookie highlight video.

On third-and-goal, after brushing backup Brooks Bollinger during a bad handoff, Peterson stutter-stepped to freeze Urlacher before darting left and scurrying over the goal line. Urlacher just shook his head, while Peterson hammed it up with teammates in the end zone.

Bollinger's dive forward on a draw play gave the Vikings the 2-point conversion and a 20-13 lead with 10:56 left, plenty of time for Chicago to come back.

Kyle Orton, though, didn't have it in him. In his first start in two years, the Bears quarterback stayed away from the costly turnovers that Jackson was guilty of, but way too many of his throws were off target. Orton completed 22 of 36 passes for 184 yards, and his long pass to the end zone to Bernard Berrian just after the 2-minute warning was intercepted by Darren Sharper to seal it.

The throw that hurt Orton the most came near the end of the third quarter, on fourth-and-1 at the Minnesota 35. On a curious call, Orton lofted a swing pass to fullback Jason McKie that sailed over his head. After the exchange, Peterson got going and led the drive for the winning score.

The Vikings wore purple from head to foot after pulling their dark pants from the back of the closet. This game had the look of one of those Black-and-Blue Division clashes with the Bears from 20 years prior.

Urlacher played like the six-time Pro Bowl pick that he is, harassing Jackson often, recording two sacks, and twice taking the ball from Minnesota.

He was angry and embarrassed two months ago when Peterson shredded the Bears defense for 224 yards and three touchdowns to send the Vikings to a 34-31 victory at Soldier Field. Never in the history of the franchise had an opposing player gained so much on the ground.

Well, they didn't forget that game, and the return of starting cornerback Nathan Vasher — after nearly two months due to nagging groin injury — gave the Bears beat-up defense another boost.

Though they moved the ball well at times in the first half, six points were all the Vikings managed, and they were lucky to get the last three.

Jackson's first throw was on target to Robert Ferguson, but the ball bounced off his chest and into Urlacher's hands and he returned it to the Minnesota 14. Two false-start penalties on the Bears forced them to settle for a 29-yard field goal by Robbie Gould.

Minnesota drove to the Chicago 22 on its next possession, but Peterson didn't handle Jackson's handoff cleanly, and Urlacher grabbed the errant ball for another turnover.

Chester Taylor dropped a third-down pass in the second quarter that would have put Minnesota in field-goal range, and with less than 1 minute left before halftime Jackson made his worst throw in more than a month by forcing a ball over Bobby Wade's head that Vasher picked off and took 34 yards to the 12.

McKie's short touchdown run came next, and the Bears had a 10-point lead. The Vikings used an 18-yard scramble by Jackson and a 15-yard late-hit penalty on Charles Tillman to sneak into range for Longwell to kick a 48-yard field goal at the gun.

5:53 AM

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Mafia boss arrested while watching Mafia TV show

Fri Nov 30, 12:09 PM ET

Italian police burst into the room of a suspected Mafia mobster in Sicily and arrested him as he watched a television show about the arrest of a Mafia boss, investigators said Friday.

Police said Michele Catalano was watching the concluding chapter late Thursday of the TV mini-series "The Boss of Bosses," recounting the arrest in 1993 of real-life Cosa Nostra leader Salvatore "Toto" Riina, when he was detained.

They Catalano, 48, was suspected of being a senior commander serving under the latest "boss of bosses" Salvatore Lo Piccolo, who was arrested this month after nearly 25 years on the run.

Catalano faces charges of drug trafficking and extortion.

Lo Piccolo had taken over the reins of the Sicilian crime syndicate from Riina's successor Bernardo Provenzano, who was arrested last year after 40 years on the run. The arrests have seriously weakened the Mafia, police say.

Politicians and cultural figures criticized Channel 5's mini-series for portraying Riina as a hero and lobbied its owner Mediaset, belonging to former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, to take the final episode off the air. Mediaset declined.

Nicknamed "the Beast" for his brutality, Riina has been convicted on more than 100 counts of murder.

11:55 PM

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Sunday, December 02, 2007

The Best "Human Nature" Sex Stories of 2007

Incest, virgin births, gay sheep, and avatar affairs.

By William Saletan
Updated Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2007, at 11:02 AM ET

2007 has been a great year for sex. OK, every year is a great year for sex. But this year is especially interesting, with reports of sexsomnia, vegansexuals, man boobs, female promiscuity, double penises, horny old folks, cosmetic vagina surgery, publicly funded sex-change surgery, and the decline of marriage and co-sleeping. Among this year's hundreds of Human Nature stories, five trends and discoveries stand out.

1) Parthenogenesis. The top sex story of 2007 is … no sex. Specifically, making babies without sperm. That stuff you were told about the birds and the bees? Sorry. The truth is that males aren't necessary. In May, scientists verified a "virgin birth" in sharks. This phenomenon had previously been found in some amphibians, birds, and reptiles, but a new genetic analysis confirmed it in a hammerhead shark. The baby shark was formed by fusion of an egg with an egg byproduct from the same mother, so its DNA was a double helping of half the mom's DNA. Scientists concluded that this might explain some mysterious births to other captive sharks.

A month later, another shark fetus developed in a tank with no apparent father. No male of the shark's species was in the tank. The fetus was found because its mother died; otherwise, it would have been quickly eaten and never discovered. The implication is that births to sharks with no apparent fathers may happen more often than we realize, because when there's no male around, we don't look for offspring.

(For Human Nature's take on parthenogenesis in sharks and other animals, click here.)

2) The abolition of menstruation. The human mind is gradually conquering the human body. Case in point: In May, the FDA approved a birth-control pill that eliminates menstruation. Unlike other birth-control pills, it simply skipped the traditional week off for bleeding. The "curse" used to be defined by its inevitability. Now that's gone.

Not everyone is thrilled about this conquest, as the debate over the new pill made clear. The pill's manufacturer says: 1) Periods can be painful. 2) They ruin your mood. 3) They cost you work time and hurt your job performance. 4) They disrupt your sex life. 5) They disrupt your exercise routine. 6) There's no evidence that they're necessary to your health. 7) Your "periods" on the pill are fake anyway. But critics argue: 1) Periods are womanly. 2) They're not an illness. 3) Stop treating your body as a nuisance. 4) Don't mess with Mother Nature. 5) There's no long-term evidence that abolishing periods is safe. 6) If you don't have them, how can you be sure you're not pregnant?

(For Human Nature's take on the conquest of menstruation, click here.)

3) Digitization. Commercial sex used to be either live and in person (prostitution) or recorded and viewed (porn). Now you can combine the immediacy of prostitution with the safety of porn, thanks to entrepreneurs who plan to offer video of live, on-demand sex through hotel TVs. This is the result of several trends: 1) Americans spent $500 million last year on pay-per-view or on-demand sex videos. 2) TV is merging with computers, which facilitate private communication. 3) Computers are already allowing porn buyers to send text messages to performers. 4) Live sex on demand is more exciting than video sex on demand.

Sometimes digital sex is too real: High-definition video is embarrassing porn stars. The embarrassments include razor burn, cellulite, wrinkles, pimples, visible veins, and fake boobs. Remedies tried so far: diets, exercise, makeup, tanning spray, grooming assistance, cosmetic surgery, softening lights, changing sex positions, and airbrushing. Actresses complain that their "imperfections" are being exposed and that HD is forcing them to get boob jobs.

And sometimes sex is physically fake but emotionally devastating: Sexual couplings in Second Life are fraying real marriages. Counselors are "seeing a growing number of marriages dissolve over virtual infidelity." One wife says her husband's avatar's marriage to another woman's avatar is cheating; he says it isn't. His arguments: 1) It's just a game. 2) He has never met the woman behind the other avatar and doesn't plan to meet her. 3) His participation in Second Life is no different from his real wife watching TV. Her arguments: 1) The virtual marriage includes a joint mortgage, dogs, and spending hours together. 2) The husband and the other woman spend real money on each other's avatars. 3) The other woman says, "There's a huge trust between us. We'll tell each other everything." 4) The husband met his real wife online in the first place. 5) His virtual avatar is all about lingerie, nude dancers, and redheads, which his fake wife is but his real wife isn't. 6) He's spending all day in Second Life and ignoring his real wife.

She's right: "When it's from six in the morning until two in the morning, that's not a hobby, that's your life."

(For Human Nature's take on policing cybersex, click here.)

4. The chemical manipulation of sexual orientation. Conservatives have been coming around to the idea that homosexuality may be biological. Leaders of Exodus International, the leading U.S. ex-gay ministry, now "talk deliberately about a possible biological basis for homosexuality, in part to explain that no one can turn a switch and flip from gay to straight." This matches a new Gallup poll in which 42 percent of U.S. adults say homosexuality is innate. The old idea was that faith would free you from homosexuality; the new idea is that you still have gay inclinations, and you accept them, but you can manage them to seek harmony with your religious beliefs. Are anti-gay leaders becoming ex-anti-gays? More likely, they're just trying to manage their anti-gay inclinations.

The new factor in this debate is research on gay sheep. Eight percent of rams show sexual interest only in other rams; a researcher has been studying the biological factors involved. Critics argue that he's trying to "cure" homosexuality in rams through "prenatal treatment" and that this could lead to "breeding out" human homosexuality. He says: 1) He studies rams, not humans. 2) He's interested in understanding sexuality, not manipulating it. 3) He opposes sexual eugenics in humans. And 4) his research might assist ranchers by figuring out which rams would breed.

Unfortunately for him, scientists don't control the uses to which their research might be put. Inspired by the sheep studies, some conservative Christian leaders are endorsing prenatal treatment to prevent homosexuality. The Rev. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes: "If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin." In an AP interview, Mohler says this would be morally no different from curing fetal blindness or any other "medical problem." A leading Catholic thinker agrees: "Same-sex activity is considered disordered. If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science." Conservatives are angry that Mohler suggested homosexuality might be biological; gays were angry that he said it would nevertheless be wrong. Mohler explained that he opposed genetic (as opposed to hormonal) intervention in the fetus and that he was trying to head off something worse and more plausible: abortions of gay fetuses.

(For Human Nature's take on gay sheep, click here. For the biology of homosexuality, click here.)

5) What's wrong with incest? Homosexuality is the old sex-and-science debate. The new topic is incest. In Germany, a brother-sister couple is challenging the law against it. Details: 1) They were raised separately. 2) They met when he was 23 and she was 15; they began living together a year later. 3) They have four kids. One has epilepsy; two have "special needs"; three have been put in foster care. 4) The brother has served a two-year sentence for incest. 5) He recently got a vasectomy. The couple argues that 1) the law is outdated, 2) it violates their civil rights, 3) they're not hurting anyone, 4) the law already lets couples with genetic risks (due to advanced age) or hereditary diseases have kids, and 5) if incestuous couples live together and don't have more kids, how can the government prove they're having sex without becoming dangerously invasive?

But a new study suggests a secular explanation for the incest taboo: It's driven by natural selection. On average, your level of disgust at the notion of sex with a sibling correlates with how long you cohabited with that sibling and watched your mom care for her as a small child. So does your level of altruistic behavior toward the sibling. These experiential factors correlate more strongly with incest aversion than does your belief that the sibling is genetically related to you. The researchers posit a mental "kinship estimator" that converts "maternal perinatal association" into altruism and sexual disgust, driving you to choose a mate outside your family. The old idea was that nature makes you horny for your sister, but faith teaches you it's icky. The new idea is that nature tells you it's icky, and faith takes the credit.

William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2174782/

11:53 PM

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Christian Finnegan: Two For Flinching (another Punline magazine.com article...deal)

Christian Finnegan: Two For Flinching

By Christian Finnegan

(that is, Christian Finnegan -- the comedian pictured above -- wrote the below review about his own album)

I recently had the supreme misfortune of receiving an advance copy of Two For Flinching, the debut CD by purported humorist Christian Finnegan. You may recognize Finnegan as the least funny person on VH1's Best Week Ever. Or you might recognize him as the white guy from the "Mad Real World" on Chappelle's Show, a credit I'm guessing Mr. Finnegan will try to coast on until there are no longer any frat boys left who think shouting "You stabbed my dad!" is hilarious.

If you still have no idea who I'm talking about, give yourself a gold star— you've managed to avoid America's worst "comedian." I use quotation marks because Mr. Finnegan does not fulfill any of the criteria associated with his title. In fact, it appears that Christian Finnegan's only real talent is in coating the hapless listener's ears in pure audio doo-doo; unfortunately, there's no title for someone who does that for a living.

Christian Finnegan Two For Flinching Calling Two For Flinching unfunny is like calling Hurricane Katrina a light mist. This album is the comedic equivalent of bone cancer. Remember Ryan White, that kid who died of AIDS? His life was a rollicking laugh-fest compared to even one track of this 52 minute spiritual dickpunch.

From topics that run the gamut from drinking to farting to drinking while farting, Finnegan displays not only an inability to construct a recognizable punch line, but also a single-minded determination to use the word "like" at least twice per sentence. It's, like, really lame (and more than a little gay).

While it's indisputable that Finnegan is a terrible comedian, it should not be forgotten that there are also plenty of other reasons not to like this guy. For starters, there's his aging-indie-rocker-meets-Gap-salesdouche appearance. Hey Finnegan, wearing distressed jeans and an oversized watch isn't fooling anyone. You're firmly in your 30s, dude. Accept it.

Oh and by the way— all of that hair product is calling attention to your freakishly large head. Nice look, Heatmiser. How you ever got laid, much less convinced a woman to marry you is beyond comprehension. I give you nine months until she's blowing one of the Tourgasm guys.

Even more damning than Finnegan's faux-hispter persona is the content of his character, or shall I say lack thereof. Remember that tragic news story recently about that woman who critically injured her baby by using it to strike her husband?

Well, Christian Finnegan's first instinct upon hearing this story was to laugh his ass off. What kind of person does such a thing? Probably the same kind of person who talks politics all the time and yet didn't bother to vote in the last presidential election. Right, right— your "voting registration got all screwed up." Whatever, dude. Maybe if you'd dealt with the situation before election week, they'd have been able to clear things up.

Honestly, I could go on all day revealing Christian Finnegan for the complete asshole that he is. He laughs at racist jokes, he's rude to waiters, he monopolizes conversations, he drinks way too much, he fails to empty the dishwasher even when he promises to do so, he sneaks potential comedy bits into everyday conversation and – rumor has it – he didn't bother to call home on his Dad's birthday this year. Nice, pal. Real nice.

Someday, the 14 people out there who care what Christian Finnegan has to say will wake up and realize what a complete an utter fraud he is. One can only hope that Two For Flinching is the first step in that awakening.

Christian Finnegan Two For Flinching To buy Christian Finnegan's album, Two For Flinching, visit www.christianfinnegan.com or your favorite online or real-life CD store. It's on sale Oct. 24 on Comedy Central Records. If you want to read more about Christian, feel free to visit Punchline Magazine's archives.

11:37 PM

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Marc maron interview from Punchline.com
Category: Life

Marc Maron:

Heartbreaking Comedy

How do you turn frayed emotion and freshly splayed wounds into something brilliantly funny? Ask veteran stand-up comedian Marc Maron.

By Dylan P. Gadino

Inherent in most great comedy, and in most great art of all kinds, is tragedy and heartbreak. Even the most optimistic stand-ups find a way to sprinkle those themes into otherwise easily digested fun-time material.

But there are a few comics – call them brave, brilliant, or just psychologically fragile enough – who thankfully incise themselves and prod their guts right in front of us all— without anesthesia, without the assurance of help, sometimes without the means to put all the pieces back in the right places.

You see it in Louis CK's bits about self-loathing and marriage; you see it in Christopher Titus' stories about his painful upbringing; you see it in Greg Giraldo's vulnerable rants about aging.

But with his impressive emphasis on soul-baring material, veteran stand-up comedian Marc Maron leads the pack of these thoughtful, enigmatic performers. His two albums, Not Sold Out and Tickets Still Available are topically diverse masterpieces that find Maron, 44, spilling on everything from his own depression, religion, politics, his sobriety, his father and his relationship insecurities.

Through it all, two things are constant: Maron's intense, painfully honest approach and a steady stream of laughs.

Punchline Magazine recently spoke with Maron from his Los Angeles home about, among other things, his purpose as a comedian, his unique approach to tired topics and his faithful, inspired following.

You make no secret out of wanting to weave some sadness into your stand-up material. Are there some bits you do that you feel are bigger downers than others?
Well, I don't know if stripping people down to the fact that life is short and usually it ends up disappointing you is necessarily what people are looking for in entertainment. But lately, if you fuse that with a little frustration and anger and not just strip it down for no reason, then something good seems to happen.

Whether or not people are willing to go there, that's up to them. And if they're not they could just laugh at me, like 'That guy's crazy.' I seem to be more philosophical than whiney. The questions I always ask myself when I get off the stage is, 'Jeez was that really necessary? Did I have to do that? Did I help the audience at all or are they going to leave feeling worse?'

Sometimes people leave my show saying, 'that guy was hilarious' and other times they say, 'I hope that guy's ok.' And either way, I've engaged you in something. If it's the latter, I've forced you into the position to care. And some of you are selfish so maybe that was new for you.

I'm in the middle of a separation and a divorce so now something else is happening on stage. I've finally gotten my genuine heartbroken stripes. I really don't know what's going to happen now in the sense of where my comedy is going.

I don't think people want to see some of those things. It's not that I'm telling some dark secret truth; it's just that sometimes I do exactly the opposite of what people are going to a comedy club for. I do it in a funny way. But I don't think people are used to hearing it.

Yeah, you seem comfortable wearing your heart on your sleeve.
I'm willing to be fairly candid and to put my heart on the line on stage. That's what the comedians I liked and I respected did; I want to create that electricity of real risk and real exploration. But I'm not a fireworks guy. It's all coming directly from my emotions.

Sometimes that could go either way. I don't think I bum people out anymore. I used to. They could see the sadness right now, because I'm a little fragile with the situation with my wife. But that's ok, I don't mind offering it up.

You've done a lot of material on your wife in the past. Can you keep those stories honest with the divorce— or do you have to lose them?
I'm really trying to put together an hour about love and relationships. Which means ultimately I'm going to disappoint my more socially active, political fans. But maybe I won't. That stuff could become political as well. Lately, what I've been realizing is that if you've got a job and your husband or wife has a job and you have a household to hold down, it's not that you're apathetic to politics— it's that you're fucking busy.

Most people are just consumed with just staying afloat, managing their lives and managing their emotions. The political process is something that most people just can't delve into. I just found this out by being consumed with this horror of having my life torn apart and my heart ripped out of my chest. Like who the fuck has time to read the paper? I'm in trouble here. It's really changed my point of view of what I think most people are up to.

It's interesting that you say some of your more socially aware fans might not be into the love and relationships material.
But I say that mostly out of insecurity. I think that most of them do [still like relationship material]. When I hosted the show on Air America, that's exactly what they listened to me for— that balance.

Most people, especially lefties, are vulnerable and sensitive; they're angry, they're very attuned to injustice and they feel marginalized. And that's been my whole life— politically or otherwise. Sometimes it's not tethered to an ideological angle. It's just being hypersensitive and hyperaware and just wanting things to be better.

So you being hypersensitive and hyperaware encompasses all facets of life, not just for social and political causes?
Yeah. And people relate to it. It's not even that I'm an acquired taste. There's just certain people that gravitate and could relate to me. Some people walk around a little heavy-hearted and some people do everything they can to avoid that. I'm sort of trying to acknowledge that feeling and move through it.

You present yourself as fragile but at the same time not completely falling apart.
No, definitely not falling apart.

And I think people are inspired by that.
Yeah, some people are and it's a good feeling. I wish there were a lot more of them but there's a few.

Marc Maron I think that there's still a lot of people that think weaving that raw emotion into comedy is too much of a deep thing.
Yeah, it's a rarified thing to see somebody do that. I don't even know what I do or how it really looks. It's just the way I talk and think. I've always seen comedy as an ongoing standing dialogue about how I see the world. I don't fundamentally write jokes. Sometimes I do. But I'm usually entertained by jokes more than I'm excited about doing them.

I have to be able to insert these thoughts and chunks into my philosophy. I don't dwell much on pop culture. I find it temporary and tedious and I beat myself up about it. If you watch other comedians, they're reading the paper, the tabloids and watching E! television and bringing it all in. I'm trying to render it down!

I often think that I gotta spruce this [emotional material] up with some light-hearted shit. If I don't put some pop culture shit in between this stuff, people are going to leave my shows exhausted— and on a very deep level. So I'm trying to do that in the best way I can because the truth of the matter is I don't give a fuck.

I honestly don't watch any TV shows regularly. I try to do my own thinking. I read newspapers; I try to get as objective news as possible so I could have my own ideas.

If I apply myself I could write jokes about anything. I used to do Colin's [Quinn] show. I did daily radio. If I sit down for two hours and you give me five news stories, I can write jokes from my point of view. I hear a lot that I'm too cerebral or I'm too heady. I don't like that because I don't think I am. I think I've very alive and in the present, but whatever.

Yeah, I don't agree with that at all. You do tons of material on love, your family, especially your father. These are all actually very ho-hum stand-up comedy topics. It's just that you attack them from a wildly different perspective.
Thank god. I feel like I'm rooted in the classics, man. That's where I come from. I'm not a fucking alternative comic. I am a straight-out fucking stand-up who paid his dues in a real way and I have heroes that were stand-up comedians. I don't aspire to be precious, or a caricature of myself or act like someone who has been there and done that. I don't aspire to be smug and shallow.

When I first heard your bit about your dad's bi-polar disorder-inspired middle-of-the-night phone call to you, I thought it was hilarious but at the same time if really destroyed me emotionally.
That's good. Good comedy should have some of that in it. When I saw Dane Cook in an interview say, 'I just want to take people away,' I thought 'away from what'— other entertainment options?

Most people aren't in anything. They may be frustrated with their lives but they're not doing any real deep work about it. They don't need to be taken away, they need to be put back! This idea that I'm here to distract you or I'm here to make you laugh so you don't think about anything— what the fuck is that?

The biggest issue I have is this: Am I an entertainer? Do I fundamentally see myself as an entertainer? What am I up there doing? I never got into comedy to get a TV show and I'm not even sure if it was necessarily to entertain people. I got into comedy because it was a noble profession where people can express themselves any way they wanted and you could put together a philosophy or point of view and you had the freedom to say whatever the fuck you wanted.

When I interviewed Doug Stanhope a few months ago, he said something very similar about how people try to convince themselves into thinking they're really embedded in all these things happening in the news, like they're going to be affected by terrorism or by disease. [ed note. After reviewing the Stanhope interview, Doug never really mentions disease; he says this: 'You'd much rather believe that fucking immigrants are trying to take your job, and pedophiles are trying to fuck your kids, and terrorists are trying to blow up your Ford Focus in particular, than realize that you're probably never even going to break a bone.'

Back to Maron: They might not become a victim of terrorists, but they will become sick. And that's the other thing that no one really talks about. Everyone dies, everyone gets sick and they do everything they can in this culture to make it happen elsewhere.

There's a sort of hyper presence that's going on where no information has any context. There's no historical context or immediate context unless it's a car chase or a tower falling, then people have no choice but to understand. Sometimes things get real. Things slow down.

It's when you step on the brakes and the road is icy and you realize you have no control over anything and you're hurtling toward another piece of metal or a fucking tree. That's what being awake and really present feels like. The rest of the time you're just reacting to stimulus. We're rats. It's all reaction and most of those reactions are fear and what most people do when they're scared is eat.

So that's what this country is based on— scaring people enough to keep eating and to keep buying things to put in between them and their feelings before they start asking questions. To be just another item on the menu to keep people away from themselves is not something I want to do.

For more more information, check out www.marcmaron.com.

11:27 PM

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Patton Oswalt Punchline Q&A

Patton Oswalt:

Comedy Compels Him

Before Patton Oswalt was Spence on The King of Queens or a rat in Pixar's Ratatouille, he was just a stand-up comedian. Fortunately for us all, his new album Werewolves and Lollipops, is proof that will never change.

By Dylan P. Gadino

Comedian Patton Oswalt is in the fortunate position of having the respect of a large group of underground stand-up comedy fans as well as the eyes of mainstream entertainment consumers. Although his nine-year role as Spence on The King of Queens has come to an end, Patton's secured his position in big budget Hollywood by voicing the lead part of Remy in Pixar's Ratatouille, which has – as of press time – earned $67 million. He'll also be seen in August's Balls of Fury, a comedy based around the sport of ping-pong and penned by the writing team of Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant. This fall he'll even be taking a dramatic turn in All Roads Lead Home.

Most importantly, however, the Comedians of Comedy tour founder's new album, Werewolves and Lollipops will soon be out on Sub Pop records. The album, his second, is an amazingly funny mix of Patton's observations on U.S. politics, societal ills and his personal life. Punchline Magazine caught up with Patton on the Fourth of July to chat about his new album and everything in between.

So, it's the Fourth of July. I thought you'd be out celebrating our country's birth. Why do hate America?
You just totally exposed it. There's no way I could defend myself. It's embarrassing.

How do you maintain that balance between the mainstream success you've had in television and movies and the more underground success and respect you've gained in your stand-up comedy career?
I think it's because it's pretty clear that all the mainstream success that I get and pursue is so that I could keep doing stand-up the way I want to do it. I think people can understand that. It's hard to make money doing stand-up these days. It's harder to travel. So why not do stuff that'll help that along. I think people know that if they're stand-up fans of mine, there's other things of mine they don't need to watch. Then there's people that like my mainstream stuff and they're smart enough to understand that my stand-up is a little bit more adult.

Do you ever hear from your stand-up fans that you're a sellout?
No one's ever said it to my face. There are people that will say it online anonymously. But then someone will point out that he's not doing TV and movies in the mainstream so he could sit back and live in a big house and drive a nice car. He spends it on doing more Comedians of Comedy tours and putting out his own albums and stuff like that.

There's not really much of an argument. If someone says something like that it's either they're very young and immature or they're very old and bitter. It's like saying I can't listen to Richard Pryor ever since I saw The Toy and Superman III. Well then you're a fucking idiot because he's really funny. That's just silly. Not that I'm comparing myself to Richard Pryor.

That's a strong argument.
I'm not making an argument. Other people are making the argument for me. I don't really care either way. In the long run – and I know this sounds kind of crass – but I don't care what people think of me. When I was just a comedian I didn't care. Now that I have – quote, unquote – mainstream success, that hasn't changed.

Also, mainstream versus indie is like red state versus blue state— it doesn't exist. You get to the age where you just like everything, ya know? Or you just find value in everything. There is no mainstream and there is no independent and street cred goes sour very quickly. There's no shelf like to it so I don't worry about it.

So if it's good it's good and if its bad its bad. Enough with the labels?
Exactly. How many so-called little indie films have you gone to see and they've fucking sucked? Then you go see some big budget movie like Speed or the new Die Hard and they're much more entertaining and fun. So who gives a shit?

Your new album Werewolves and Lollipops has a strange title. Where did it come from?
The title came from me trying to think of a title for the album and having every single one rejected by Sub Pop. Then, I finally threw my hands in the air and said, 'Fuck it,' I just came up with that and they said, 'Hey, we like that. That's good.' It was like the worst title I could come up with and the one that had nothing to do with the album.

What were some of the titles Sub Pop rejected?
There were so many. Comedy Costs You; I wanted to call it My Penis for some reason. Yelling was another one. Those are the ones I could remember.

Maybe you could do a limited edition, unreleased track album and call it My Penis.
Yeah, I'll do a Billion Dollar Babies cover and everything.

How has the ending of The King of Queens affected you?
I miss going in and working with everyone there. I had a lot of friends there so that was a lot of fun. But I was only on like every third episode so I would only work a couple weeks a month. So it wasn't that much of a shock for me as I think it might have been for other cast members. And I worked really hard to establish other stuff that I was doing, so it wasn't like, 'Fuck, now what am I going to do?'

You're a big Food Network fan, right?
There's actually not a lot of shows that I watch on Food Network. I like Top Chef on Bravo. Anthony Bordain's show is on the Travel Channel. I do like Good Eats on the Food Network; that's a great show. I just like good food shows. I'm not loyal to a network.

If you ever had the chance to do your own food show, what kind or show would it be?
It would be like a dinner club show where me and bunch of friends sit around and go to different restaurants and talk so it's not just on me to carry the show. I like to interact with people. So I'd have different friends of mine on and we'd go to different places and eat food and talk.

You'd talk about the food?
Anything. We could let the food lead us into certain subjects. And let it lead us back out of certain subjects. Who knows?

Sounds like you've thought about this.
Well, they did that Dinner for Five show and Daniel Boulud is doing a similar show so the thing is I don't want to rip anyone off.

I just watched the Balls of Fury trailer. It looks like a spectacular film.
I only have one scene but it was a lot of fun to do.

So what's your role? In the trailer you're licking, what I assume, is a ping-pong trophy.
I'm competing with the hero and then taunting him.

I assume you beat the hero.
Who knows? You'll have to see the movie.

How would you describe the state of contemporary stand-up comedy?
I think right now, its great. I can't believe there are so many good people doing it right now— especially the younger comedians coming up. They're just fucking fantastic. It's really fun right now.

What comedians do you especially like?
There's so many. Dan Mintz, Michelle Biloon, James Adomian, Anthony Jeselnik, Natasha Leggero, Morgan Murphy. There's just so many right now. Comedy is in a great place right now. There's a super strong new wave.

A lot of comics think the opposite, that its becoming overexposed on television and the like.
I don't think so at all. Right now, the good part is that these really good young comedians are being left alone to develop on their own. They're just so much more savvy as to what to do and what not to do so they're developing in really good directions. Especially, with the Internet, there's so much more access for people to do what they want to do. It's great.

You're 38 now. Are you the type of person to stress out about turning 40?
No. Age has nothing to do with anything. It's just whatever you're doing with your life. I just don't think age matters.

So there will be no midlife crisis?
I don't know what's going to happen. Maybe I will; maybe I won't, but I don't sit there and look at my life like it's on some kind of schedule. Like well, 'I'm this age so this must happen now.' It's a really silly way to think.

How's married life?
Good, it's really fun.

Does your wife share your interests of comic books and all things sci-fi?
Nope, she doesn't. She's not into any of that stuff. Which is kinda cool. I don't someone exactly like me. That's boring.

How long did you know each other before getting married?
Two years.

How did you meet?
We met at Largo. She was there to see a show and I was on stage. I was doing the show and we just started talking afterward and it just really happened.

Was she familiar with your stand-up?
No, that was the first time she'd seen me.

In your act, you dedicate a decent amount of time to your feelings on our government and the war. Are these things that concern you a great deal or just things that are easy to mock?
No, it's stuff I really care about and stuff that I'm really frustrated about.

What frustrates you the most?
Willful ignorance— the aggressive ignorance that people use so that they feel better about themselves and feel better about things. That kind of drives me a little crazy. And people cleaving to party lines rather than listening to logic on both sides gets a little frustrating. And just the state of discourse— it's all yelling and catch phrases. It's frustrating because you know nothing's getting said or discussed or decided. It's all jingoism.

For more information, check out www.pattonoswalt.com.

11:15 PM

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Comic Joy

Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net

7:29 AM

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Sunday, December 02, 2007

DRM’s Ice Is Thinning (Music Business)
Category: Blogging

DRM's Ice Is Thinning

Billboard's Ed Christman has a great article on the major labels' official positions on DRM. EMI has already dropped DRM from its downloads, and Universal Music Group is currently testing non-DRM downloads at select retailers (but can you really see them doing an about face and sticking DRM back on tracks?).

The "tipping point," as the Gladwell-inspired Christman put it, may be an upcoming promotion run by Amazon.com and Pepsi that will give away up to 1 billion tracks (though certainly far fewer will actually be redeemed). The promotion, built around an ad run during the 2008 Super Bowl, "coincides with an ultimatum from Wal-Mart asking major labels to supply walmart.com with their music in MP3." Walmart.com could disappear and labels probably wouldn't mind, but labels should pay attention to the warning because Wal-Mart's brick-and-mortar stores represent their largest account and floor space is going to get tight next year. (Swap dropping DRM for not decimating its CD SKU count? It's worth a shot, Mr. Morris.)

Apple has a monopsony power that labels fought tooth and nail. But Amazon.com has a similar bargaining power as a buyer of media, and labels are obviously more willing to trust Amazon.com -- if only to lessen some of Apple's market dominance.

The Pepsi promotion puts a twist on the ol' "free music" and ad-based models. Rather than simply give it away or use music to sell ads, labels have an option work with advertisers and retail partners to get music onto the hard/flash drives of fans while still getting paid. How much will they get paid? Christman says sources put the amount at $0.40 per track. That's well below the $0.65 to $0.70 per track wholesale cost. As for any foot dragging over the price, labels should look at the historical precedent. They give volume discounts (plus coop marketing dollars) to physical retailers. I think one billion tracks meets the definition of volume.

7:22 AM

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos