July 10, 2007
Making Up For Lost Time
I normally don't see ads on television (thank you, Tivo!) but this week, I did because my wife recorded one on purpose.
It was Elvis Costello shilling for Lexis.
Tonight, my wife comes up to my desk and drops a magazine ad in front of my face. There, in a two page spread...
Elvis Costello shilling for Visa.
For someone who went on Saturday Night Live and broke into Radio Radio, and who has always refused to license his songs for commercials, I guess he's making up for lost time.
It was a fine idea at the time...
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
March 23, 2007
This American Life... on TV!
This American Life on television, it's here! The first episode is available to watch for free on the Showtime website.
I was really pleased with how well the show has translated to video. They really have done an outstanding job capturing the mood, feel and content of the radio show, while integrating visual imagery. Do I like it as much as the radio show? I'll hold off for a few more episodes, but I'm pretty hopeful.
The only issue I have is that it's on Showtime. There's nothing else on Showtime I'm interested in... is it worth paying for Showtime just for TAL on TV? Hmmm.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
October 12, 2006
This American... Wait Is it Snowing?!
It snowed today. Twice. It's October. This. Is. Chicago. sigh
In good news, This American Life is going to be offering Podcasts for free!
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)
May 25, 2006
The End of Film
Well, another one bites the dust: Canon will stop making film cameras soon, following in the footsteps of Nikon. Yes, of course film won't be dead overnight, but its days are numbered. My kids will probably never see the inside of a darkroom, and that does actually make me a little sad.
Least you think I'm a Luddite, I own a number of digital cameras, including a digital snapshot, digital SLR and even a digital video camera. I think digital photography is great--it unleashes new possibilities that were either impossible or damn near impossible with film. It also makes it a much cheaper hobby (overall) which I think is great.
However, there's something really magical about a darkroom... part nostalgia, I'm sure. But the equipment, the smell of the chemicals, the process. It really appealed to an artistically inclined geek like me. When you are shooting and developing your own photos, it's more than just capturing the image: it's the process of creating the photograph.
I'll never forget the first time I was in a darkroom. My dad had converted the bathroom closet in our old house into a darkroom. He had a Bessler color enlarger in there, which was so cool. Of course, I started out with black and white. It can be a lot of fun, loading up the enlarger, exposing the image--once you've captured the image on film, it felt like releasing it onto the paper. The enlarger fires up, and there, for a few seconds, is your image. Then darkness. And standing over a tray of chemicals, swishing around the paper as an image magically appears... Downloading a file and printing it on an inkjet just isn't the same. Digital, in the end, will probably only help photography. More people can afford it as a hobby, it's probably safer not to be around the chemical fumes all the time, and the possibilities for image processing seem limitless. But that magic, watching the image appear physically before your eyes where before there wasn't any... that's lost and I do think that's a shame.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (3)
May 4, 2006
Jane Siberry Gets It
Jane Siberry gets it. Not only is she a great musician, she's obviously on the ball when it comes to electronic distribution, too. Her on-line music store offers four different levels to pay:
- Free (A Gift From Jane)
- Suggested Price (.99)
- Pay Later (Download Now, Pay Only If You Like It)
- Pay a "Self-Determined" Amount (More or Less Than Suggested)
You know what? The store stats show that only 17% download for free, while of those paying, 79% paid the suggested price, 14% paid above the suggested price, and only 8% paid below the suggested price. And all of this is for MP3s with no "Digital Rights Management" restrictions, etc.
Record companies should take note: people want to do the right thing and compensate the artists they love. But they want to be able to use the songs where and how they want. See what happens when artists trust fans? They make money.
[Via Boing Boing]
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (2)
August 10, 2005
Some Girl(s)
You can't go to London and not go to the theatre. At least, I can't. Unfortunately, since I was working so much during this trip, it was hard to break away and get out in the evening; usually I was pretty exhausted by the time I returned to the hotel.
However, during our last few days in London, my wife and I did get a chance to catch Some Girl(s) at the Gielgud Theatre. (Coincidentally, I've seen several plays here in the past.)
I wanted to see Some Girl(s) because it was written by Neil LaBute, not because it was starring David Schwimmer. I don't really have an opinion on Schwimmer one way or the other. On one hand, he is a founding member of Chicago's Lookingglass Theatre Company, which is decidedly cool. On the other hand, he was on Friends, which is decidedly not. But I'm a big fan of Labute's film work (In the Company of Men, Your Friends and Neighbors, Nurse Betty) so I figured this would be worth a trip... seats in London can be had pretty cheap.
Without going into all the details, the play centers around a nameless "Man" who is about to get married and is revisiting some of his past relationships, which ended badly (or did they?) in some sort of last ditch soul-searching exercise. I don't want to give away anything about the play, so I'll stop there. The female cast members were all quite good, although each of their characters felt a little stereotyped to me... not a lot of dimension, although, that seems to have been deliberate for serving the purpose of the visits.
Schwimmer was, well, as far as I can tell, Schwimmer. I've only seen one or two episodes of Friends. It seems to be one of those shows that people say, "oh, it's better than you think, you just have to watch and get to know the characters." So I try, and I see an episode that, evidently, wouldn't be so downright stupid if I "knew the characters" and give up. Only to try again later and end up seeing a re-run of the same episode. Or is it? Anyway, as far as I can tell, the character development of "Man" in Some Girl(s) is a little too close for comfort to the Ross character Schwimmer played on Friends. The character is a shlub. Likable enough, but still kind of a whiny shlub. Which Schwimmer does play well, but you never get past Schwimmer into believing the shlub. (Unlike the amazing Matt Malloy, who in In the Company of Man takes shlub to a whole new level, opposite the equally talented Aaron Eckhart... but I digress.)
Overall, not a bad night out at the theatre, but I wouldn't expect Some Girl(s) to make it out of the West End. It felt a little like a piece that was being work shopped, and still had a way to go.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
The Tate Modern
The last time I was in London, several years ago, the Tate Modern was only days away from opening. I was very disappointed not to be able to see it, so this time around, there was no way I was going to miss it. Overall, I'm very glad I went--everyone visiting London should go. But have to say that I was pretty disappointed with the collection.
Let me preface this by saying that I love art museums. I'm spoiled in that I've had a chance to visit: The National Gallery, the Hirshhorn, the Guggenheim, the Met, MoMA, the British National Gallery, the Dali Museum, the Van Gogh Museum, the Louvre and I happen to live in a city with it's own great museum, The Art Institute of Chicago. So I have high museum expectations.
That said, the Tate Modern is the coolest space for an art museum. Ever. It's an old hydro-electrical generator station along the banks of the Thames, and wow, it is an amazingly impressive space. So impressive, in fact, that it completely dwarfs and diminishes the collection inside.
The collection at the Tate isn't laid out by artist or period, but rather by subject matter, for example, "Nude/Action/Body" or "Still Life/Object/Real Life." I actually really like that organizational structure. It allows you to see how different artists from different periods approached similar subjects, which is very cool.
The collection has some "star" artists, there are some pieces by Picasso and Matisse, some Duchamp (yawn) and Koons. There's a few Monet's and a Kandinsky, but all of them are just kind of blah... with only a few exceptions, they seem to be lesser pieces from lesser periods. Not that it all has to be wildly popular to be a good museum, but the Tate just left me feeling, well, underwhelmed--at least the collection.
There were some good photographic pieces, some so-so Cindy Sherman work (stuff at MoMA is much better). There are some great Stieglitz and Weston nudes, which were almost canceled out but the awful, awful, awful Gilbert & George work. Oh, man, awful.
My two favorite things were the "Thames River Dig" and the Rothko room. The Thames Dig is a room that features found objects from a project that involved an archaeological dig along the Thames with a bunch of school children--slightly out of place for an art museum, but totally cool nonetheless.
I liked the Rothko room because it featured these massive red/mauve/grey pieces that were very abstract and atmospheric... moody. They were among the only pieces that fit the scale of the space--which I think is the major problem with the Tate. It's this really amazing space on an immense scale which just tends to dwarf the exhibits and make the artwork fade into the background. It's such a cool an exciting space that it really works against the collection.
Who knows, maybe the collection wouldn't seem so dull if it were in a more traditional museum building. Maybe it would. On the whole, I'm very glad I got a chance to see it, and if you're in London, you might as well stop by. The area has a lot going on (it's not far from St. Paul, the Millennium Bridge, Parliament, Westminster, etc.) and the building itself is pretty damn impressive. Just don't expect to be blown away by the art.
Posted by Dave! Permalink
February 28, 2005
Some tips for better blogging...
Bacon's has an article called "How To Write Killer Blog Posts And More Compelling Comments".
It's a very good article, well worth a read...
[Via Minor Wisdom]
Posted by Dave! Permalink
February 21, 2005
Hunter S. Thompson: R.I.P.
Hunter S. Thompson is dead at the age of 67. Thompson was a lot older at 67 than most at that age... I think it's fair to say he lead a full life.
Posted by Dave! Permalink | Comments (1)