Friday Funk

Get on down and enjoy the weekend!

iPod ban revisited

I've been wanting to chime in again on the iPod ban (see here and here) for a while, so here it is.

I was actually waiting for Running Times Magazine to post their September issue, which included a rather absurd editorial on the matter. However, the site still only has the July/August issue up, despite the fact that October's issue is already out.

The editorial (by David Gerweck) essentially disses people who use portable music devices as though they're not true runners, athletes, whatever. To wit:

[the iPod] allowed a whole new segment of the population, who heretofore had found the process of repeatedly putting one foot in front of the other too tedious to endure for a few minutes, to so dissociate from
their bodies they could run for miles, even 26 of them.

Way to not make this an elitist, us-versus-them issue.

Gerweck also rehashes the safety argument, which I have yet to see substantiated by anything other than preemptive speculation. Gerweck does make an attempt:

Last year at a race, an ambulance responding to a runner having a heart attack was delayed several minutes by headphone-wearing runners who couldn't hear it's siren.

What race? Where? When? I don't let my students get away with neglecting to provide evidence, and I sure don't take journalists seriously when they fail to. But ok, let's assume this episode of a delayed ambulance did occur. Are you sure that this delay was because of "headphone-wearing runners who couldn't hear it's siren?" Are you sure it wasn't 100s (or 1000s) of bodies running the race? Moreover, I don't know where this race took place, but any ambulance siren that I've ever heard is almost painfully piercing. So much so in fact, that I have a very hard time believing that the average person wearing headphones - even at maximum volume - would be unable to hear a siren coming at them, causing them to remain in its path.

Races that have enforced the rule, like the Grandma's and Twin City marathons, have found it made there events safer; many runners have said it made those races more enjoyable too.

How are we able to empirically say that these races are "safer?" Is there actually data that illustrates this over a headphone-friendly race? Or is this just what people who support the ban have said regarding the races in question? Likewise for those who enjoy listening to music, perhaps it was a rather unenjoyable experience.

But Gerweck's BIG POINT is that the iPod has made running "less social."

...for me, one of the sport's greatest appeals is the social interaction and camaraderie it engenders. Whether on an easy morning run or a near-breathless jog between gut-busting intervals, talk among runners was ever-present. But now it's in danger of becoming extinct.

Like the polar bears. But seriously, it's not as if anybody is making people run with iPods. Those folks who enjoy socializing while on the run should go for it. That's fine. Who's going to argue against camaraderie?

But for me, running isn't about other people. It's about me. Selfish? You bet. Running is when I am cut off from school, work, deadlines, research, writing, etc. etc. It's 'me-time.' It's a time for my mind to sort out to-do lists, mentally arrange plans, be introspective.

Even beyond that, I've tried running with other people a few times. And I hated it. I know that I'm clearly not a "serious" runner in Gerweck's mind, but running with someone and socializing just leaves me winded, and the run much less enjoyable. I don't want to socialize with anyone while I'm running. The most I want to have to say is "Excuse me, thanks" or a friendly "Hello."

This dependence on musical accompaniments to workouts has, in some cases reached the level of reducto ad absurdum. I know two friends who are religious about running together, yet with each of them wearing their own iPod! Physically together, they're as separate socially and emotionally as if they were alone.

This doesn't seem so ridiculous to me. First of all, Gerweck assumes "social" equates "verbal." [Sorry, but I'm a communication guy]. Surely we can engage with each other socially without speaking. But more importantly, these hypothetical iPod twins are hardly separated emotionally. For some people it's merely the presence of someone else that provides a sense of support, or even challenge (in terms of pace, for example).

The good note in the article is that Gerweck suggests the ban's repeal (though he calls it "unfortunate").

------------

Fast forward to today, when I recieved the info for my upcoming marathon. Whether or not the iPod ban would be part of this or not has been on my mind. Finally, I get confirmation! But it's not good. The are recognizing the ban.

I find this disappointing and humorous. Disappointing for obvious reasons. Humorous because of a blurb I received in a recent newsletter about the race:

YOU COULD BE A WINNER
Without Crossing the Finish Line First

Provident Bank is especially proud to be the Official Bank of the 2008 Baltimore Marathon, and as a mainstay in Baltimore banking since 1886, we know all about long distance performance. On race day, we'll be giving away 26 ipods at the Provident booth at Celebration Village and 26 digital cameras at the Provident mile at Patterson Park. We hope to see you there!

So we're banning the use of iPods for this event, but we're also giving them away. I love it.

Whether or not officials will be yanking and disqualifying music fans remains to be seen. As I've mentioned before, it seems that most races state the ban, but don't enforce it (indeed - imagine the chore of regulating headphone use in something like the Baltimore Running Festival, which has 17,000 participants). We'll just have to see what we can see. In the meantime, I'll continue taking the Zune on my runs, thank you.
----
Postscript:

The latest issue of Runner's World (a better publication, for my money) has a short interview with Sugar Ray Leonard.

"I cannot run without my iPod. I run to Teddy Pendegrass, Luther Vandross, Outkast. I always ran to Michael Jackson's 'Leave Me Alone' when I was making my comebacks because the press and public were so against them."

Are you going to fuck with Sugar Ray, seriously?

Friday Funk

Hallelujah!

Stretchin' out this week with the space bass.

Friday Funk

Really wanted a deeper Players' track, but there weren't many to choose from, and most weren't actually "live." Great track nonetheless - happy funky friday. Gotta love the dance breakdown!

PODCAST #1!!!!

I've been toying with this idea for a while, and I've gone ahead and done it. I don't know if I'll continue this experiment, but will probably give another episode or two at least.

This is clearly a first attempt. The first few mic breaks expose the faults of a $10 microphone (though the last 2 breaks I played more with EQing that shit out).

I meant to break it up into two files, but forgot too - so sorry for the large download.

All of those disclaimers aside, this first episode is a musical celebration of Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson, all of whom turned 50 this summer.

If you give a listen, please comment with yer thoughts!

Gonzo's Music-O-Rama: Podcast #1

Friday Funk

Today, the so-called King of Pop turns 50. Everything else aside, he was once the greatest figure in pop and r&b music. Creatively and culturally, he's fallen pretty far from those graces. It's perhaps one of the most tragic tales in popular music. How did one man go from dominating popular music & culture to putting out irrelevant music and becoming beyond eccentric?

Like many, I have a history with Michael Jackson. I would venture to say that he's the first celebrity that I could identify. (I don't know this for a fact, but I can't see who would have preceded that in my youth.) I have many memories of listening to my mother's copy of Thriller growing up, including dancing in the basement with my sister and cracking my head open on the brick hearth.

Thriller was huge and important to me growing up, but Bad was where I really became an MJ maniac. It started when we went to Disney World in the summer of 1987. Captain E.O. blew my mind. (Note: some friends and I recently watched it thanks to the intertubes, and it was horrible.) I decided in the theater that MJ was my favorite recording artist ever.

Bad was the first tape I ever owned. I played the hell out of it. I remember seeing the long version of "Bad," the premiere of "Smooth Criminal," the Pepsi commercials, so desperately wanting to see MJ at the Pittsburgh Civic Arena in 1988, feeling ripped off because the compact disc had an extra song, etc. etc.

Bad admittedly doesn't hold up well beyond a snapshot of 1987. Thriller and Off the Wall have stood the test of time and remain great pop records. Bad is a little more of a product of the late-80s production style. But still, it holds a special place in my heart.

I recently got a copy of the Yokohama broadcast of the Bad tour. There are a number of things interesting about this performance. First, the setlist. The only songs from Bad are "I Just Can't Stop Loving You" (featuring Sheryl Crow!) and the title track. The rest of the set is Thriller, Off the Wall and material from the Jacksons' catalog. It's a very funky set.

Secondly, no lip synching! I was astonished. It's very clear that he's singing live, as it's imperfect. Apparently the second leg of the tour was when he started relying more on lip synching and by the Dangerous tour, you could count the live vocal tracks on one hand (and probably have a remainder).

All of this led me to the conclusion that although Thriller is a record breaking cultural phenomenon, the Bad period was when MJ was at the top of his game. He was still incredibly cool. You could tell your friends at school that you liked MJ and nobody had a problem with it. His performances in this period were solid. He was still somewhat sexy. If he'd had no further plastic surgery, things would have panned out much better for him today. And although Bad sounds "so 1987," at the time it was still a great album, having 5 #1 singles, plus one at #11 and another at #7.

Just an observation.


But based on that, here are two videos from the era. Both are live. The first is the official video for "Another Part of Me," which I pulled because it's one of the less frequently mentioned songs from the album.



And lastly, from that Yokohama DVD, one of my favorite MJ songs - "Working Day and Night."

Pandora May Pull Plug

Original article posted here.


Buckling under the weight of the Internet radio royalty hike that SoundExchange pushed through last July, Pandora may pull its own plug soon. Despite being one of the most popular Internet radio services, the company still isn't making money, and its founder, Tim Westergren, says it can't last beyond its first payment of the higher royalties.
Related Stories

SoundExchange offered a potential reprieve from the royalty hikes, but that turned out to be a red herring to sneak DRM onto web radio. In the end, SoundExchange was able to initiate a massive (and retroactive) royalty hike on Internet radio stations, imposing per-user fees for each song. Adding insult to injury, the royalties on Internet radio will double for big stations by 2010, to an estimated 2.91 cents per hour per listener—far higher than the 1.6 cents that satellite stations would pay. Radio stations don't pay fees like these yet, but don't worry. SoundExchange is working on fixing that problem.

Pandora, its peers, and many of their collective users have petitioned SoundExchange and politicians multiple times, but nothing has worked. According to the Washington Post, Representative Howard L. Berman (D-CA) is attempting one more last-minute deal between webcasters and SoundExchange, one that could lower the per-song rate set last year, but he isn't optimistic. "If [the negotiations don't] get much more dramatic quickly, I will extricate myself from the process," Berman said.

If Berman is unsuccessful, Pandora will have to pay 70 percent of its projected 2008 revenues of $25 million. "At the moment we think this problem in Washington is not going to get solved," Pandora's founder Tim Westergren told the Post, "we have to pull the plug because all we're doing is wasting money."

While it's true that SoundExchange has had DRM and radio broadcast flags on its agenda for some time now, representatives of the company have also justified its stance on higher royalties from revenue and profit standpoints. Stations like Pandora, SoundExchange argues, have a higher profit margin and more value because they can broadcast an unlimited number of songs to their users. This dynamic ability stands in contrast to traditional and even satellite radio stations that broadcast a single song on a finite number of channels.

SoundExchange also argues that Internet radio stations could do a lot more to increase their revenue, become profitable, and pay their (arguably high) fees. As much as it pains us to say it, there may be a point here.

There's no doubt that SoundExchange has been strong-arming the Internet radio industry into oblivion. But most Internet radio stations like Pandora offer their services for free, or they offer accounts with more features at incredibly cheap prices. While some stations display ads on their website, Pandora hasn't done itself any favors by offering desktop clients and a wildly popular iPhone application that rake in millions of users without so much as a single ad. Perhaps, for now, the "just build it and we'll figure out the business model later" approach won't be enough to save this experiment in new media.

-David Chartier
-----

I'm not as huge a fan of Pandora as some other folks (my channels always seemed to get pretty repetitive), but I do like the service and think it's a cool concept. And free. I spent many of my office hours at Iowa with Pandora on in the background.

In a way I'm upset, because Pandora is caving to the industry. Yet I totally understand why, and I can't blame them. It's just another example of how ridiculous the attempts to regulate Internet radio have become, not to mention a gauge of the contemporary music industry's insatiable greed. Ultimately something else will pop up in Pandora's place and in fact, some alternatives already exist.

Maybe if the music industry actually gave a damn about music, and maybe if they haven't been gouging consumers for the last 20 years, maybe if artists got more than a pittance of royalties from CD sales - maybe then I could *kind of* see where people like Sound Exchange and the RIAA are coming from. But I'm not telling you anything you haven't heard before.