Live from New York...

Ask anyone when they think Saturday Night Live "jumped the shark" and I'm sure you'll get a variety of answers. Generally, the answer will depend on which cast the person grew up watching. And for a show that's been on television since 1975, that's a lot of ground to cover and a lot of cast members to consider. In fact, I think that SNL has jumped the shark so many times, the shark doesn't even show up anymore.
The reason I'm writing about the show is because the first season is set to come out on DVD in December; unedited, complete with musical guests. It's been years since I've seen an entire show from that era and it will be interesting to see how the episodes have stood the test of time.
The basic format of the show hasn't changed much over the years. The show opens with a sketch, usually something topical, followed by a monologue by the host, then maybe a commercial parody and a few more sketches. A musical performance is usually after about 4 or 5 sketches, followed by Weekend Update. After that point, the laughs drop off considerably, although some characters have grown from those late program sketches. And while the format stays the same, it's the eclectic aspect of the program that's changed, not necessarily for the better.
Argue all you want about which cast is the best, but I prefer the early years and not just for the cast. Back in the late 70's, there was nothing like this on television. Variety shows were basically safe and family-friendly, from Carol Burnett to Donny & Marie. SNL offered the only real alternative, a slap-to-the-face of network programming. It was also event television, something people talked about Monday morning. Occasionally SNL will inspire that kind of conservation now, but not like the early days. And the eclectic choice of hosts and music provided a spark. Unlike today, when the host is someone usually plugging a movie, television program or record, the hosts in the early days seemed to people the cast wanted the opportunity to work with. Such comedians as George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Lily Tomlin and Robert Klein wound up as hosts in the first season, while Steve Martin would host the show five times in season two and three. In fact, the first show, which was hosted by Carlin, contains a lot of his stand-up as well as an odd performance by Andy Kaufman.
The musical guests in the early years were generally an odd mix, consisting of folk/singer-songwriter types, with appearances by Paul Simon, Gordon Lightfoot and Leon Redbone, but also unlikely groups like ABBA and the Preservation Hall Jazz Band. SNL, though did tap into the new-wave music trend in seasons three and four, boasting appearances by Elvis Costello, Talking Heads, DEVO and Kate Bush. Occasionally SNL will still book a group considered "cutting edge", but they generally venture into the commercially-safe territory.
I know I'm looking forward to this boxed-set. Not just as a reminder of this television institution got started, but also as a way to remember my youth. When staying up late was cool and you couldn't wait until Monday to recite the sketches to your classmates. Also, the only shark the show had to worry about was a landshark.

Is it November 8 yet?

I've just wanted to hide under the covers until this current political season is over. While I enjoy the freedom we have to exercise the democratic process, this year has been overkill as the two parties fight for control. And it seems that no matter where you turn, you're getting bombarded with political adds. Television has been a non-stop parade of ads, although it's mostly been about three things: Claire McCaskill vs. Jim Talent, Admendment 2 and Admendment 3 (for those outside Missouri, McCaskill/Talent is a Senate race, Admendment 2 is stem cell research and Admendment 3 is a cigarette tax). The McCaskill/Talent race has gotten ugly at times (who am I kidding, most of the time) as they spend their ad space telling us what the other candidate isn't doing in their current position instead of telling us what they're actually going to do if elected.
Of course, the adds don't stop there. On Saturday, we received four(!) political mailings, although it was really two sets of the same mailings. And the barrage has also occurred on the phone as I now live in fear of phone calls. Thank goodness I don't listen to the radio, because I'm sure it's there as well.
But the big question is, do these ads really help? I can't see a Republican voting for a Democrat, or vice versa, simply based on these ads. And while they may be targeting the undecided, how many people really are undecided? I've had a clear picture of who I'm going to vote for some time ago and these ads aren't going to sway me. Do people say they're undecided as a way to taunt the pollsters? Is an attack ad that is void of facts really going to change your mind?
What we really need are ads for the lesser known races, like some of the propositions or judges. These are races/decisions that are important to a community but get lost in the shuffle of the bigger races. Or better yet, how about taking that money from political advertising and use it to help people. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to compile a list of charitable organizations, government programs, etc. that could use the money. And even though I work in an industry that relies on political ads, what's wrong with politicians actually giving back to the community.
So until November 7, I'll turn off my television, won't answer the phone and stay away from the mailbox. And as far as the McCaskill/Talent race is concerned, I'm just going to vote "No."

Goodbye Cardinals... uh, I mean Yankees...

The way the St. Louis Cardinals finished the 2006, I didn't figure they would last the first round of the playoffs. After almost losing a comfortable lead the last two weeks of the season, I figured the Padres would finish them in four. So when the Cardinals took the first two games of the series, I knew my prediction was wrong. Meanwhile, in the opposite league, I felt that no one would stop the Yankees bats. Even when the Tigers were up 2-1, I still thought the Yankees would come back to win the final two. But good pitching prevailed, and the Yankees can get some rest. George Steinbrenner will spend the off-season pouting, then spending tons of money for another team that lacks chemistry. Now, which direction do the playoffs go?
Since I know more about the National League, I'll start there. While the Cardinals have mediocre pitching, the Mets seem to be hurting in that category at the moment. Manager Willie Randolph expects to tap into the bullpen a lot, so you'll probably see several four and five inning starts. So the Cardinals have the advantage there. However, I think the Mets line-up is a little more balanced. Pujols is a huge threat, but they'll need a couple other guys to step up. If it's a short series, I'd go with the Mets... long series, Cardinals. I say Mets in five.
In the American League, Detroit doesn't have quite the pop that Oakland has in their line-up. However, they've got some major adrenaline flowing after the Yankee series and those young arms will come through. A tough series, but I go Detroit in six.
Those are my predictions for this round of playoffs. But then again, I could be wrong.

Check Your Local Listings

The new network television season started a few weeks ago with plenty of shows vying for your attention. But the trouble with choosing which new program to watch goes beyond just the quality of the show. One also has to wonder; how quickly could this get cancelled?
Back before the onslaught of cable channels, television shows generally got half a season to prove themselves. That would usually mean around 13 episodes, less if the show was a summer/mid-season replacement series. If a network was floundering in third place, a show would sometimes be given more time, mostly due to a lack of a better option. Of course, if the show was a disaster and had no audience, the axe would naturally drop sooner. The quick axe would happen a couple times a season.
But now with so many choices competing for your eyeballs, the shelf life of a new show seems much shorter. Shows now get cancelled (or put on hiatus) after two, maybe three airings. A television program now has to get out of the gate quickly, or it's put down. And with the current trend of shows with continuing plotlines, it's hard to know what show to invest time in. Fans of "Reunion" discovered that last season. I don't know much about the show expect that it was to follow a group of classmates over I believe a 20 year span and a murder was involved. The show got cancelled and the murderer never revealed. And while the show didn't have a big audience, there were a few million people left with a big question mark.
Of course, big ratings early don't guarantee anything either. Remember "Commander in Chief"? One of the best rated new dramas to start the season, but cancelled by the end of the season. But there, you're dealing with a lot of internal problems that lead to the decline in viewership.
FOX seems to be the most inconsistant with the handling of shows, as they'll nurture some and quickly cancel others. "House" didn't start strong, but when paired with "American Idol", it found an audience, and now does quite well. Meanwhile, "Arrested Development" received strong critical support, but never found an audience. Many fans were upset when it wasn't brought back this year, but I'm more amazed that FOX stuck with it for three seasons. However, FOX is also the quickest in pulling the trigger. When "Family Guy" returned to the air, one segment had Peter naming the shows that had been cancelled on FOX during the time "Family Guy" was off the air. It's quite a list.
I don't know how these frequent schedule changes effect viewers. After all, I've found a couple new shows that have piqued my interest, but with some trepidation. I guess before I sit down, I'll need to check my local listings.

Comedy is more than subjective

Humor is one of the toughest things to gauge because you never know what will make someone laugh. Shots to the groin for some reason, always seem to work on most people, while comedy like "South Park" appeals to a select audience. But not only is comedy subjective, it also is generational. Just like music, the "old folks" don't understand what the kids find funny. Two reasons why I mention this: a recent on-line discussion on Dane Cook as the best stand-up comedian ever and my recent purchase of Steve Martin's album (yes, on vinyl) "Comedy Is Not Pretty."
I own a copy of Cook's "Retaliation" and watched his brief series on HBO. And while he seems to be a funny guy, he doesn't have the history to claim "Funniest Stand-Up... Ever." Most of the participants making that statement seemed younger in age, more plugged into what's happening at the moment. Naturally, the older people invoked names like Carlin, Pryor and Seinfeld. And while I don't know if I'd make a comparison between Cook and those icons, there are some similarities between him and Steve Martin.
Unfortunately, this current generation is mostly familiar with Martin as the father figure in lame family comedies. But at one time, like Cook, he was a rock star among stand-up comedians. His first two albums charted in the Top Ten of the Billboard charts, he toured amphitheaters, and make the crossover into television then movies.
When I was a teenager, I thought Steve Martin was the "funniest comedian... ever." I devoured "Let's Get Small" and "A Wild and Crazy Guy", memorizing the bits and performing them later for friends. I eagerly looked forward to his appearances on SNL, as well as his television specials and movie, "The Jerk." However, I also remember sitting in the family room, listening to "Let's Get Small" with my father. He was curious as to why I found this man, performing in a white suit, wearing an arrow through his head while playing banjo, so funny. And while we listened, all of the laughter came from my side of the room. I don't remember much being said afterwards, but I'm sure he didn't understand his son's sense of humor.
My recent listen to "Comedy Is Not Pretty" wound up being a bittersweet nostalgic turn. I still knew a good chunk of the bits, but they didn't hold the same comedic impact. However, I still enjoy the humor in "Let's Get Small" and "A Wild and Crazy Guy". While I would put Martin on a list of Best Stand-Up Comedians, I doubt I would place him at #1.
As I've gotten older, I've listened more to guys like Carlin and Pryor, taking in more of the history of stand-up comedy. I still enjoy cutting edge material, but I've also learned to appreciate guys like Seinfeld and Newhart, who may not considered edgy, but who perform funny, well-written bits. So I guess the question that should be posed of Cook fans ten or fifteen years from now is, still funniest... ever?

Colbert Vs. Stewart

The recent Emmy Awards pitted Stephen Colbert against Jon Stewart, with "The Daily Show" walking away with the victory. Then, moments later, Colbert lost to Barry Manilow. While I won't analyze that battle, I'm more interested comparing "The Daily Show" with "The Colbert Report." The reason is because I'm beginning to believe that Colbert has surpassed Stewart in the laughs department.
This isn't to take away anything away from Stewart as "TDS" is still funny. The opening block of the show still contains plenty of pointed barbs aimed at current issues and I always look forward to "Back in Black." But unfortunately, they're pre-recorded pieces have lost their punch and their correspondent positions have turned into a revolving door. I'm sure the shows notoriety has caused the former while Steve Carell's success may have had a hand in the latter. It should be interesting to see who's left for the mid-term elections.
Meanwhile, Colbert has slipped effortlessly into his right-wing pundit character. Segments like "The Word," "Stephen's Sound Advice" and "Threatdown" generally hit the mark. His "Better Know A District" has provided several laughs, especially the Robert Wexler interview. And because of Colbert, I no longer trust bears.
The interview segments aren't the strong part of either show. Sometimes Stewart seems a little too excited with certain guests (mostly entertainment related guests) and occasionally Colbert seems too caught up in the questions on his index cards. However, Colbert's best interview moments happen when the guest appears to be in on the joke, yet lose their cool anyway after Stephen provokes them. As for Stewart, his better interviews are generally people in the literary or political community.
Comparing the two shows is a difficult thing to do since they still stand as two of the best shows currently on television. I just believe Colbert may be inching ahead of Stewart. And now for your moment of Zen...

Snakes on a Motherf#*@ing Plane II

This week's "Entertainment Weekly" just came out with a blurb explaining that the magazine would not include a review of SoaP. The magazine makes it sound that New Line didn't want a review to appear as though New Line were withholding secret documents that would blow the lid off an investigation that could topple a world leader. And while "EW" has been part of the hype-machine, it wasn't a surprise that they would be denied an advance screening of the movie. You could sense early in the ad campaign that critics were not going to get a chance to see this movie before the paying masses. New Line knew it had to take to advantage of the hype and hope for a big opening weekend and word-of-mouth.
My wife and I went to a Thursday night screening with a fairly small audience. While I wore my SoaP T-shirt, a group of kids brought rubber snakes into the theater. They were ready to rock.
As to the actual movie itself... well, I can say that I had a very good time. It's not a complex plot and the plane passengers are the typical line-up of disaster movie cliches. And it took too long for Samuel L. to utter his catch phrase about the MF snakes. However, you're not going to a movie like this to think. You want to see people attacked by snakes. And you get plenty of opportunities as snakes, real and CGI, roam freely around the plane. You have to also give the producers credit for an original twist on a standard Hollywood idea, something you don't see often.
I've read several of the reviews on Yahoo! (from users, not critics)and they have swung mostly from one extreme to the other. People seemed to love this film (some calling it "great", which is overdoing it) while a minority really hated it. Those people, the haters, seemed to miss the camp value. For me, I thought it was a fun thrill ride where you could just turn your brain off for a couple hours and simply enjoy yourself. Absolutely nothing wrong with mindless entertainment. A good crowd and maybe a few adult beverages wouldn't hurt. Of course, you know it will only be a matter of time before SoaP turns into a drinking game. Coming to a college near you.

Snakes On A Mother*&#@ing Plane

"Snakes on a Plane" has been one of the most hyped films of the year, regardless of whether it's any good. When I first heard about this movie, I honestly thought it was a joke. Samuel L. Jackson fighting snakes... on a plane. But I admit, I've gotten caught up in the hype, which has been brilliant. Websites are devoted to this movie, short films are popping up and T-Shirts are all over the place (yes, I own one). The title says it all. And yet, I haven't heard anything about the actual film itself. I've seen the trailer several times, and I doubt that it will be screened for critics, who would probably look down on it anyway. But even without any commentary about SoaP, I am full of anticipation. Besides, this isn't a film for critics. It's "Snakes on a Plane". And while I can be critical of films, there's a certain kitsch level that is exciting. The movie opens here Thursday night. My wife and I will be in line, expecting two hours of mindless entertainment. Now I wonder where they'll put the snakes for the sequel...

Goodbye Greg Maddux. Could you please take Dusty Baker with you?

Saturday, July 29, Greg Maddux pitched his last game as a Chicago Cub. And it was almost vintage Maddux as he painted the corners, worked quickly and kept his pitch count low. The Cubs would beat the Cardinals that day, on the way to sweeping the Cards in four games and providing one of the few highlights of a dismal season. Two days later, Maddux became a Dodger in exchange for a light-hitting, middle infielder because, apparently, the Cubs needed another one. Maddux would make his Dodger debut by pitching six, no-hit innings.
I've always been a fan of Greg Maddux, even after the Cubs let him getaway the first time. Maddux was a student of the game. He didn't have a fastball that would overpower a hitter, but he understood the art of pitching. Using the corners, working effectively and letting the hitter basically get himself out. And his stretch from 1992 to 1998 (mostly for the Braves) in one of the best in recent memory.
As a Cub fan, I only got to see Maddux pitch once, oddly enough against the Dodgers. It was back in 1990 and wasn't one of his better games as I believe he lost 8-0. The Cub highlight was the return of Mitch Williams as he made his first appearance after returning from the disabled list. However, Maddux was one of the few pitchers that seemed to handle Wrigley Field and it was a disappointment when he signed with Atlanta.
Unfortunately, the second time around wouldn't be as sweet. Occasionally we'd see flashes of vintage Maddux, but he didn't dominate as he once did. The strikeout totals were decreasing while the ERA was increasing. And the pitchers he was to tutor spent more time on the DL in the last 2 1/2 years than Maddux did in his career.
So the best of luck to Greg Maddux as a Dodger and future Hall-of-Famer. You always seemed to be a class act. A student turned teacher of the game. And as to the Dusty Baker comment, that's another post for another time.

Happy Birthday MTV: Sorry I didn't get you a gift

VH1 Classic has been hyping the 25th anniversary of MTV as well as promoting the fact that they'll run MTV's first day. In watching the videos this new station ran in its first hour, it's fun to see how videos have changed over the last 25 years. These early clips were mostly shot on video, with the band members awkwardly dancing while lip-synching their songs. Occasionally the videos would get ambitious by adding special effects or even a storyline. And with a short supply of promotional videos, there were a few bands I vaguely remember (okay, I didn't even recall a band named PhD).
There's no doubt about it, MTV changed music. Of course, if you don't believe me, the promos will emphasize that fact. But this anniversary makes me feel old since I work with a bunch of people who don't know life before MTV. Or even life before MTV became a haven of teen-based reality shows.
I remember the early days of MTV. No, I wasn't watching the first few hours or days because we didn't have cable television. In those days, cable television was a luxury many people didn't have and my father couldn't fathom paying for television. In fact, my mother still doesn't have cable. Usually we'd have to gather in a friend's basement to watch this revolutionary channel and on occasion, we'd head to the local arcade for our blast of video music. But we would watch for hours at a time. It didn't seem to matter if we liked the bands or not, we would watch in hopes of catching one of our favorite videos.
Of course, my MTV viewing declined during college. MTV tried to reach out by adding "120 Minutes" and the goofy game show "Remote Control" to accommodate my changing tastes. But sooner or later, you're no longer in the MTV demographic, and you drift away. Occasionally I'll tune in, but I find myself gravitating more toward VH1 Classic to re-live the early years.
But like all things, MTV has changed over the years. I've made fun of MTV for not taking the "M" part of the name seriously anymore. But with the advent of home computers and DVD players, watching music video isn't the same either. You want to watch your favorite video, you can download it or buy them on DVD. I can watch "Whip It" or "Rio" whenever I want (that reference doesn't give away my age, does it?). Now MTV attracts the kids with a sea of dating shows and programs featuring rich kids acting snotty. Then again, MTV isn't reaching out to a post 40-year old male. And if I want to learn about new music, I do it the old-fashioned way... I read about it.
So happy 25th birthday MTV. It won't be long before you're too old to be considered part of your desired demographic. I can't wait for the mid-life crisis.

M. "Shama-Lama-Ding-Dong" Night

"Lady in the Water" opened last weekend and I have a fair amount of indifference. Judging by the box office, I wasn't the only one. My wife made an attempt to get me interested in the movie, but I have too many doubts. And several of the reviews appear to confirm these doubts.
Night makes good looking films and knows how to set the mood. But his stories seem too hit-or-miss. "The Sixth Sense" was a fabulous movie with the twist that you didn't see coming. "Signs" was solid, although unspectacular with a weak ending. With "The Village", once you figured out the twist, it was tough to sit through. And "Unbreakable"... well, I thought it was two hours in which nothing happened (comic books fans, I discovered, disagree strongly). And judging by the trailers of his latest, it's atmosphere over plot. However, there are some pluses. Night has stated there is no twist with "Lady in the Water" and it does star Paul "why hasn't he been nominated more than once" Giamatti. But a recent article in Entertainment Weekly painted Night as a control freak with an inability to listen to outside ideas. That's a blessing and a curse. It's good to see Night stand his ground as Hollywood has a tendency to water down an idea. But if the idea doesn't work... Hey, I'm a control freak as well, but I also realize the need to listen to constructive criticism (the downside is that it has to come from someone I respect).
Maybe the recent disappointing box office will make Night rethink his strategy. He's definitely a director with a unique prospective and the ability to make quality movies. Hopefully Night won't let ego trump creative vision.

Reunited, and it feels so good...

Reunions are something that have been part of the entertainment industry for as long as I can remember. Musical acts hit the road again and in some cases, write new material. Television characters from popular shows converge for a special, usually during a sweeps period. And let's face it, isn't a sequel some form of a reunion? Unfortunately, I think the word reunion gets thrown around too easily in an effect to generate interest. Because what really constitutes a reunion?
Two recent reunions got me thinking about it: The New York Dolls and The Cars. The New York Dolls latest release hits stores on July 25 while the "New" Cars is already available. And both bands have only two original members as part of the gathering. Granted, for the Dolls, David Johansen and Sylvain Sylvain are the only surviving members. So, a full-fledged reunion is out of the question. The death toll is not as great for the Cars, with Benjamin Orr as the only casualty. But is 40% of a band enough to be considered a reunion?
I've heard music from both, and the answer seems to depend on which band you examine. Johansen was the main songwriter for the Dolls and he still has plenty of power and swagger. Johnny Thunders' guitar is a missing element, but the spirit of the band still seems to exist. In a recent interview with "Blender" magazine, Johansen expressed the importance of having a brand. The name recognition is an important factor even if it isn't really the full New York Dolls.
On the other hand, the New Cars just doesn't seem right. Ric Ocasek was the chief songwriter and architect of the band's sound. In his place; Todd Rundgren, who happens to be an accomplished songwriter but with a different style. They've also produced new material although what I heard was merely adequate. The rest of the material was classic Cars songs, which had an odd sound with another voice. I don't want to take away anything from what Greg Hawkes and Elliot Easton contributed to the band's sound, but it's missing a lot without Ocasek.
But frankly, is this really any different than a band that continues to use the same name even if it only has one or two constant members? The Pretenders have used the same moniker for years even though it's basically Chrissie Hynde. So I guess approach each reunion with some caution and be glad that the Dolls didn't go the Cars path by slapping the word "New" into their name.

Clerks II: Just thoughts, no review

I will probably see "Clerks II" although I have some hesitation. I've generally enjoyed the work of Kevin Smith, and will go to support him as a film maker. I won't be there opening weekend because I'm not a big fan of crowded theaters. Plus, the wife wants to see it and we have to coordinate our movie schedules, which is no easy task. But regardless of the reviews, I'll still have ticket in hand.
I remember when "Clerks" came out and the waves it created in the film business. I worked in a video store at the time, where I think most of the employees aspired to be Randal. In reality, they were more like Dante. However, I do have to credit them with turning me onto the film, and I've seen most of his work since (missed "Jersey Girl"). "Chasing Amy" ranks as my favorite while "Mallrats" appeals to me the least. I know of at least one person who rated it as his favorite, but there was too much slapstick for me.
A couple years ago, I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by Kevin. He answered several questions throughout the evening, mostly on topics you would expect from fans. He's a really funny, personable guy and a good storyteller. What amazed me was the fact that he spoke for four hours! He could have easily continued, and may have at a local diner (the college cut him off at midnight). Of course this is where my older self battled with my younger self. Older self kept reminding younger self that I had to work in the morning. Younger self won, and I stuck with the whole lecture. Older self wasn't happy with the hour of sleep I got before work. Anyway, there's a DVD available called "An Evening With Kevin Smith" that features his speaking engagements.
So best of luck to Kevin at the box office this weekend. I'll be with you for "Clerks II"... just don't push your luck with "Clerks III."

TV Shows on DVD: Marketing Genius

While I love my DVR, I think another trend I like is the influx of television shows available on DVD. Before the "DVD Revolution", television shows weren't too common on VHS. You'd get the British cult classics (Monty Python, the Avengers) and various episodes of an American series, but generally not an entire season or series. But now, every week, a new (or old) series is popping up on DVD. I figure there are three reasons why I like the trend. First, it's a chance to relive your favorite shows without having to dig through television schedules wondering if there's even a channel carrying your show. I recently purchased the fourth season of "News Radio", and have been enjoying the brilliance of the show. Granted, season three is my personal favorite, but you get the point. Comfort in knowing that I can watch my favorite show without commercials and if I'm lucky, with cast commentary or bonus extras. Second, it's a chance to catch a show you may have missed the first time. "Freaks & Geeks" and "Family Guy" are two examples in my collection. "Freaks & Geeks" was a show that I had heard of, but never got around to watching it's one season on the air. A joy to watch because it's a time frame I can relate to and yet I wish I could say I had supported it when it was on television. With "Family Guy", I didn't start to watch the program until after its cancellation and release on DVD. And, as it turns out, I wasn't the only one, as the DVDs sold like wildfire, bringing the show back. Finally, and this is the marketing genius, is that if you miss a season of a current program, you can catch up and hop aboard for the current season. I think HBO really took advantage of the situation and the networks are using the strategy. Simply release a season on DVD just before the next season begins. Particularly effective if the show has a continuing plot line. My wife and I are currently hooked on "Deadwood," although we just started season two. But that's where the DVR is handy, as it's recording season three. However, not all my favorites have made it to the DVD format yet. "WKRP in Cincinnati" may never make it because of music rights. But "Freaks & Geeks" cleared that hurdle, so there's hope. After all, if Screetch is available for home viewing, then shouldn't Les Nessman. And if you'd like more information on what's coming out on DVD, check out the site TV Shows on DVD. The link is on the right.

Plank to the Face Radio... Huh?

In my 20 plus years of broadcasting, I've spent a majority of it working in radio. And while I overall enjoyed the experience, I never really liked the way the music was programmed. Granted, that's another subject for another time, but in looking back, I think there were four situations I didn't feel that way. Two involved college stations. The stations were student run and more importantly, student programmed. The DJs controlled the music for the most part. The format was generally alternative, but other styles crept into the mix, like blues, reggae, jazz and even country. So while we played artist like Midnight Oil, the Cure, the Smiths (hey, it was the 80s), you might also hear Miles Davis, Albert Collins, Burning Spear or even Johnny Cash, before he was cool again. The third was a syndicated radio show I produced that featured new, independent artists. The final situation was a couple years ago when a local station let me do an 80s show on Saturday afternoon. The audience response was good, I got to play music I liked, and even had my friends co-host the show. And that brings us to the present. I guess in an attempt to recreate my college radio experience, I put together the playlists for Plank to the Face. It's a variety of music, from the 50s to the present with an emphasis on the 80s. Most of it would fall into the alternative category, but there's plenty of mainstream music I also enjoy (ABBA is a guilty pleasure). Do I make any apologies for my choices? No, because music means different things to different people. My wife loves Josh Groban, but thankfully our tastes meet at They Might Be Giants. I just enjoy having an avenue to share my musical taste and maybe turn people onto a band or song they might not be familiar with. New tunes are added weekdays with a larger playlist on the weekend. So hit the link and enjoy. And I promise, no idle DJ patter...

Bad Movies

While in the office the other day, the discussion turned to your favorite movies. Naturally, when this discussion begins, sooner or later, someone will mention a movie you totally hate. One thing will lead to another, and the topic turns to bad movies. And that subject got me thinking: What actually defines a bad movie? It is a film that's bad technically or a film that you hate so much, you'd rather gouge your eyes out than watch it again. There are several bad movies that exist that I enjoy because of the good-bad movie factor. The works of Ed Wood are a perfect example. Poorly written, acted and directed, but yet they have a certain charm to them. If anything, he had enthusiasm, which is so missing in a lot of film making these days. "Showgirls" is another example. A bigger budget film that was poorly written and acted. Elizabeth Berkley only showed two emotions; angry and naked. The attempt at erotic soap opera turned more into unintentional comedy. To me, it's one very funny movie and has become a camp classic. On the flip side, I recently saw "The Family Stone," a movie I absolutely hated. It wasn't bad in a technical sense, but I disliked every character and the oh-so-predictable ending. And yet, other people enjoyed it. Bad movies are always a matter of opinion and the cause of a good argument. Now maybe if they had made "The Family Stone vs. Alien"...

Welcome to Plank to the Face

Okay, welecome to Plank to the Face: The Blog. This is a site that deals with pop culture, mostly movies, television and music. Sports will be also covered and whatever else is on my mind. This also ties into Plank to the Face: The Internet Broadcast.