Tonight, tens of thousands of crazy people will brave crappy weather to shoe-horn themselves into Times Square for the New Year. The forecast is calling for icy rain.
Maybe that will slow up the pickpockets.
Can someone PLEASE tell me what the appeal is?
While going out and partying on New Year’s Eve is fun (although I have found myself at home in recent years watching Dick Clark), I cannot fathom the reasons why people are drawn to a place where they’ll be packed in like sardines to……WATCH A BALL DROP?
My curiosity of the whole “ball” thing made me want to do a little research. Who the hell came up with THAT idea? Here’s the short version:
1904-The New York Times opens it’s new building at Longacre Square—and petitions the City to rename the triangular “square” in it’s honor—hence, Times Square.
Times owner Adolph Ochs announces a huge New Year’s celebration—and over 200,000 people show up (there wasn’t much else to do in 1904)---No ball, but there were foreworks.
1907-Times Chief electrician Walter palmer creates the first “ball” at the urging of Ochs, who wanted some kind of massive show to usher in the New Year. The first Ball descended from a flagpole in Times Square and was made of iron and wood with 100 25-watt bulbs.
1942-1943—The Ball didn’t descend due to wartime lighting restrictions in case of enemy attack.
1955-1980-Ball is replaced by one made of aluminum-and now weighs only 150 pounds.
1981-1988-Due to the “I Love NY” campaign, the bulbs are changed to red and the sphere grows a stem to reflect the “Big Apple”
1989-1994- Traditional white bulbs are back
1995-1998- Ball gets computerized with strobe light system and rhinestones.
1999-New aluminum Ball
2000-2007-Ball gets a new design for the Millennium, with Waterford crystal
2008-New Ball makeover for 100th anniversary
2009-Ball is DOUBLED in size, but more energy efficient (20%) and the Ball remains halfway up the pole as a permanent fixture all year long.
Check out this video of Guy Lombardo and company from the 1957-1958 New Year’s celebration! This was the earliest footage I could find—and happens to be the year of my birth….my, how times have changed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfUp6iPAZ2M
Hard to believe that as many as a MILLION people now show up to “enjoy” the drop. Here’s another short clip about this year’s Ball:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5sACW5PqBc
I may take a sip or two of champagne, but don’t EVER look for me in Times Square. Maybe I should make a New Year’s resolution never to show up for the Ball drop. That way, I’ll at least have ONE resolution that won’t be broken by January 2nd.
Happy New Year! I’ll take tomorrow off from writing so I can watch the Ohio State Buckeyes win the Rose Bowl against Oregon (pretty please God) If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Accidental Star
Rick Nelson was a teen idol crafted by television.
In fact, he may have been the first “manufactured” rock star, zooming to fame on the coat tails of the hit TV show “Ozzie and Harriet” in the 1950’s.
That show’s huge weekly audience, coupled with the birth of rock & roll created ideal conditions for the manipulation of teenage girls. A Petri dish of sorts, growing the culture of mass-media- influenced stardom, based mostly on exposure rather than talent.
Don’t get me wrong-I’m not trying to diminish the talent of Ricky Nelson, who was killed in a plane crash on this date in 1985. The man had enormous appeal—and no small measure of talent, but unlike Elvis or Buddy Holly, Nelson REQUIRED the measured rollout of his rock & roll persona on national TV to catapult him to stardom.
With his brother and parents essentially playing themselves on TV, Nelson was already a star. Attending Hollywood High, he showed little interest in music until his girlfriend raved to him about Elvis. He responded with a boast that he too was planning to cut a record. His father allowed him to cut a demo with his orchestra. Nelson said later that he chose to cover Fats Domino’s “I’m Walkin’” because it relied heavily on the two guitar chords that Nelson knew how to play.
When he played the song on the TV series, he became an overnight sensation. Here is the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwSwlkxHSnY
Nelson released his first album in November of 1957 and it flew to #1 on the Billboard charts. Ricky Nelson became one of the biggest selling singers in the 50’s—with 53 Top 100 hits—and 17 in the Top 10.
When “Ozzie and Harriet” went off the air in 1966, Ricky (who changed his name to Rick) Nelson’s career fizzled. He made a brief comeback after discovering the emerging style of country-rock—and had a #1 song with “Garden Party”—a ditty about his failed concert at Madison Square Garden—where he was booed off stage.
Performing more than 200 nights a year, he was traveling to Texas for a show when his plane crashed. Ironically, the very last song he performed live was a cover of “Rave On” by Buddy Holly—who also perished in a plane crash with The Big Bopper and Ritchie Valens in 1959 (often referred to as “The Day The Music Died”)
The “Travelin’Man” was gone. Rick Nelson was 45.
So, while not the musician thought of as influential like Holly, Rick Nelson was a pioneer.
He was the first in a long stream of ready-made teen idols created by television’s mass penetration. The Monkees were another such act—and I’m sure you can name more.
He was an appealing part of our pop culture—when innocence was still the order of the day. Rick was a wholesome star that a girl could bring home to meet her parents.
Ozzie and Harriet wouldn’t have had it any other way.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
In fact, he may have been the first “manufactured” rock star, zooming to fame on the coat tails of the hit TV show “Ozzie and Harriet” in the 1950’s.
That show’s huge weekly audience, coupled with the birth of rock & roll created ideal conditions for the manipulation of teenage girls. A Petri dish of sorts, growing the culture of mass-media- influenced stardom, based mostly on exposure rather than talent.
Don’t get me wrong-I’m not trying to diminish the talent of Ricky Nelson, who was killed in a plane crash on this date in 1985. The man had enormous appeal—and no small measure of talent, but unlike Elvis or Buddy Holly, Nelson REQUIRED the measured rollout of his rock & roll persona on national TV to catapult him to stardom.
With his brother and parents essentially playing themselves on TV, Nelson was already a star. Attending Hollywood High, he showed little interest in music until his girlfriend raved to him about Elvis. He responded with a boast that he too was planning to cut a record. His father allowed him to cut a demo with his orchestra. Nelson said later that he chose to cover Fats Domino’s “I’m Walkin’” because it relied heavily on the two guitar chords that Nelson knew how to play.
When he played the song on the TV series, he became an overnight sensation. Here is the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwSwlkxHSnY
Nelson released his first album in November of 1957 and it flew to #1 on the Billboard charts. Ricky Nelson became one of the biggest selling singers in the 50’s—with 53 Top 100 hits—and 17 in the Top 10.
When “Ozzie and Harriet” went off the air in 1966, Ricky (who changed his name to Rick) Nelson’s career fizzled. He made a brief comeback after discovering the emerging style of country-rock—and had a #1 song with “Garden Party”—a ditty about his failed concert at Madison Square Garden—where he was booed off stage.
Performing more than 200 nights a year, he was traveling to Texas for a show when his plane crashed. Ironically, the very last song he performed live was a cover of “Rave On” by Buddy Holly—who also perished in a plane crash with The Big Bopper and Ritchie Valens in 1959 (often referred to as “The Day The Music Died”)
The “Travelin’Man” was gone. Rick Nelson was 45.
So, while not the musician thought of as influential like Holly, Rick Nelson was a pioneer.
He was the first in a long stream of ready-made teen idols created by television’s mass penetration. The Monkees were another such act—and I’m sure you can name more.
He was an appealing part of our pop culture—when innocence was still the order of the day. Rick was a wholesome star that a girl could bring home to meet her parents.
Ozzie and Harriet wouldn’t have had it any other way.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
No, We're Not Related
Happy Birthday, Mary Tyler Moore!
Born in 1936, this talented actress has been part of American culture since 1961, when she was cast as Laura Petrie on the hit sitcom “The Dick Van Dyke Show”. Virtually unknown at the time, Mary soon became a star as bright as Mr. Van Dyke himself.
Not bad for someone who previously played the part of an elf during Hot Point appliance commercials within the “Ozzie And Harriett” show! She auditioned for the role of Danny Thomas’ daughter in his long running hit show, but was turned down. But, Thomas’ company was producing “The Dick Van Dyke Show”—and Danny himself recommended the young lady he rejected as his TV daughter to be Van Dyke’s TV wife!
Without a doubt, Mary Tyler Moore’s career triumph was her own show, “The Mary Tyler Moore Show”, where she played Mary Richards, a young TV News producer. The show was HUGE success, running from 1970-1977, winning multiple Emmys and creating spin-offs, including “Rhoda”, “Phyllis” and “Lou Grant”.
A couple of video clips here-one is of perhaps THE funniest episode, the funeral of “Chuckles The Clown”—and the other an outtake reel of bloopers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwC361O13gk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4XHXeiMRSk
Great TV!
I wish I had a dime for every time someone has asked if we are related. I’d have a couple of bucks. And would trade all of it for a smidgen of her talent!
I’m still waiting to be “discovered”. How’s this- a sitcom about a radio DJ in Cincinnati?
Has that been done yet?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Born in 1936, this talented actress has been part of American culture since 1961, when she was cast as Laura Petrie on the hit sitcom “The Dick Van Dyke Show”. Virtually unknown at the time, Mary soon became a star as bright as Mr. Van Dyke himself.
Not bad for someone who previously played the part of an elf during Hot Point appliance commercials within the “Ozzie And Harriett” show! She auditioned for the role of Danny Thomas’ daughter in his long running hit show, but was turned down. But, Thomas’ company was producing “The Dick Van Dyke Show”—and Danny himself recommended the young lady he rejected as his TV daughter to be Van Dyke’s TV wife!
Without a doubt, Mary Tyler Moore’s career triumph was her own show, “The Mary Tyler Moore Show”, where she played Mary Richards, a young TV News producer. The show was HUGE success, running from 1970-1977, winning multiple Emmys and creating spin-offs, including “Rhoda”, “Phyllis” and “Lou Grant”.
A couple of video clips here-one is of perhaps THE funniest episode, the funeral of “Chuckles The Clown”—and the other an outtake reel of bloopers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwC361O13gk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4XHXeiMRSk
Great TV!
I wish I had a dime for every time someone has asked if we are related. I’d have a couple of bucks. And would trade all of it for a smidgen of her talent!
I’m still waiting to be “discovered”. How’s this- a sitcom about a radio DJ in Cincinnati?
Has that been done yet?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, December 28, 2009
Books With No Pages
Amazon is touting the success of the “Kindle”, the electronic reader which is sold on the company’s hugely popular website. In the first battle between Kindle and the Sony “Reader”, it appears the Kindle has won. It enjoys a 65 percent share of the market, as opposed to 35 for the Sony product.
Before you make comparisons to the VHS vs. Sony Beta battle for the dominant standard for videotapes (in which Beta had almost universal acclaim as the superior format, but lost to VHS based on adoption/availability/cost), there may not be an exit from the market for the loser if sales are adequate for both.
Most astounding to me is the fact that, for the very first time ever, electronic books OUTSOLD conventional books (you know, the ones with PAPER in them)! Amazon didn’t release specific figures, but stated that it’s peak sales day was December 14th, where it sold 9.5 MILLION items overall worldwide! That comes out to 110 items per SECOND!
For its part, the Kindle became the most gifted item in Amazon history (albeit a relatively short one), due in part to extensive marketing of the device.
I know that environmentalists will embrace a “book” that doesn’t kill trees, but I am a purist. Call me old fashioned, but I like the tactile experience of reading. Holding a book, turning pages, using a bookmark. Although I admit not having test-driven the machine, the thought of navigating an electronic device (Learning Curve #4,568 of the decade) holds no appeal for me. Different covers, sizes, textures and page/paper grades make the experience of reading one that involves all five senses.
If unfamiliar with the Kindle, here’s a product review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAf4vxGEOAo
After watching, it does make me at least want to give the Kindle a try. Downloading entire books through thin air and being able to store THOUSANDS of books and documents in a compact handheld device has its advantages.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezo says this is the future of books, doing to reading what the iPod has done to music.
He may be right.
Nevertheless, I will choose to go the old fashioned route—until they stop the printing presses! You know that sometime soon, a prominent author like Dan Brown will make a novel available ONLY as an electronic download (with a generous advance from Amazon, no doubt), all in order to spur adoption of the new technology.
I guess one truth is evident with any of the new electronic readers—“you can’t judge a book by its cover”. This, because the cover will always be the same.
If you’d like to receive my weekday blog in your box---or downloadable from Google on your Kindle or Sony Reader, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Before you make comparisons to the VHS vs. Sony Beta battle for the dominant standard for videotapes (in which Beta had almost universal acclaim as the superior format, but lost to VHS based on adoption/availability/cost), there may not be an exit from the market for the loser if sales are adequate for both.
Most astounding to me is the fact that, for the very first time ever, electronic books OUTSOLD conventional books (you know, the ones with PAPER in them)! Amazon didn’t release specific figures, but stated that it’s peak sales day was December 14th, where it sold 9.5 MILLION items overall worldwide! That comes out to 110 items per SECOND!
For its part, the Kindle became the most gifted item in Amazon history (albeit a relatively short one), due in part to extensive marketing of the device.
I know that environmentalists will embrace a “book” that doesn’t kill trees, but I am a purist. Call me old fashioned, but I like the tactile experience of reading. Holding a book, turning pages, using a bookmark. Although I admit not having test-driven the machine, the thought of navigating an electronic device (Learning Curve #4,568 of the decade) holds no appeal for me. Different covers, sizes, textures and page/paper grades make the experience of reading one that involves all five senses.
If unfamiliar with the Kindle, here’s a product review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAf4vxGEOAo
After watching, it does make me at least want to give the Kindle a try. Downloading entire books through thin air and being able to store THOUSANDS of books and documents in a compact handheld device has its advantages.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezo says this is the future of books, doing to reading what the iPod has done to music.
He may be right.
Nevertheless, I will choose to go the old fashioned route—until they stop the printing presses! You know that sometime soon, a prominent author like Dan Brown will make a novel available ONLY as an electronic download (with a generous advance from Amazon, no doubt), all in order to spur adoption of the new technology.
I guess one truth is evident with any of the new electronic readers—“you can’t judge a book by its cover”. This, because the cover will always be the same.
If you’d like to receive my weekday blog in your box---or downloadable from Google on your Kindle or Sony Reader, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Bette Davis Eyes
The Hollywood of today holds no appeal for me. I mean, if you cruise the streets, you may see a famous movie actor or actress shopping or eating in a café, but there is little of the glamour that USED to be Tinsel Town.
I’d love to go back to the glory days of Hollywood—the 30’s and 40’s, when the stars were truly glamorous—and the movies actually were filmed in Hollywood. Sure, the deals are still done there, but on-location shooting and computer-generated special effects have rendered Hollywood almost irrelevant when it comes to actually being the SITE for filmmaking.
Back in the day, actors and actresses signed multi-movie deals with studios—and the grand soundstages where classic films were made were surreal places where the early directors created magic!
It was on this date in 1930—nearly 80 years ago—that Bette Davis signed with Universal after years of work as a struggling actress. Born Ruth Elizabeth Davis in Massachusetts, she decided in high school to become a star. After some mediocre roles on Broadway, she was rejected by Goldwyn Studios following her first screen test.
Davis’ film debut was in “Bad Sister” in 1931. She played relatively unremarkable roles into the mid 30’s. Even after winning the Best Actress Oscar for her role in “Dangerous” (1935), she was still not offered the starring roles she coveted. Aiming for more respect, she moved to Warner Studios, but had the same luck there. Refusing roles that she felt inferior to her talent, Davis tried to work in England. Warner eventually won a court battle enforcing her contract to work exclusively for them. After the victory, Warner started to treat the actress with the respect she craved.
Here is a video clip of Bette Davis’ more memorable moments on the silver screen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea5__uUuxoU
Imagine being on the set of ANY of those films! Now, that’s the Hollywood that appeals to me.
Davis won Best Actress nominations for five consecutive years, including “Jezebel” (1938), “Dark Victory” (1939), “The Letter” (1940),”The Little Foxes” (1941) and “Now, Voyager” (1942) A stunning performance as actress Margo Channing in “All About Eve” in 1950 won huge critical acclaim.
Her career taped off in the 50’s, but was revived by her role in the 1962 movie “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?”---perhaps her creepiest performance, if you ask me!
In 1977, she became the first woman to receive the American Film Institute’s Life Achievement Award—and her filmography includes more than 80 movies.
Bette Davis died of cancer in 1989—but will live on forever in the movies that helped to define the Golden Age of Hollywood.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
I’d love to go back to the glory days of Hollywood—the 30’s and 40’s, when the stars were truly glamorous—and the movies actually were filmed in Hollywood. Sure, the deals are still done there, but on-location shooting and computer-generated special effects have rendered Hollywood almost irrelevant when it comes to actually being the SITE for filmmaking.
Back in the day, actors and actresses signed multi-movie deals with studios—and the grand soundstages where classic films were made were surreal places where the early directors created magic!
It was on this date in 1930—nearly 80 years ago—that Bette Davis signed with Universal after years of work as a struggling actress. Born Ruth Elizabeth Davis in Massachusetts, she decided in high school to become a star. After some mediocre roles on Broadway, she was rejected by Goldwyn Studios following her first screen test.
Davis’ film debut was in “Bad Sister” in 1931. She played relatively unremarkable roles into the mid 30’s. Even after winning the Best Actress Oscar for her role in “Dangerous” (1935), she was still not offered the starring roles she coveted. Aiming for more respect, she moved to Warner Studios, but had the same luck there. Refusing roles that she felt inferior to her talent, Davis tried to work in England. Warner eventually won a court battle enforcing her contract to work exclusively for them. After the victory, Warner started to treat the actress with the respect she craved.
Here is a video clip of Bette Davis’ more memorable moments on the silver screen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea5__uUuxoU
Imagine being on the set of ANY of those films! Now, that’s the Hollywood that appeals to me.
Davis won Best Actress nominations for five consecutive years, including “Jezebel” (1938), “Dark Victory” (1939), “The Letter” (1940),”The Little Foxes” (1941) and “Now, Voyager” (1942) A stunning performance as actress Margo Channing in “All About Eve” in 1950 won huge critical acclaim.
Her career taped off in the 50’s, but was revived by her role in the 1962 movie “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?”---perhaps her creepiest performance, if you ask me!
In 1977, she became the first woman to receive the American Film Institute’s Life Achievement Award—and her filmography includes more than 80 movies.
Bette Davis died of cancer in 1989—but will live on forever in the movies that helped to define the Golden Age of Hollywood.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Nothing Says "Chickmobile" Like Corvette
The very notion that a CAR has the power to attract women (regardless of the dweeb behind the wheel) is amusing, but if there is ANY car with the power to accomplish this feat, it is the Corvette.
It was on this date in 1952 that the very first Corvette, a production-ready prototype-was produced. GM Chief William Durant decided to build a small sports car after traveling to Europe and seeing the popularity of the speedy roadsters there. The first Corvette was reportedly modeled after a Jaguar and the prototype was said to have cost between $50,000 to $60,000 to build. The first production ‘Vette rolled off the assembly line on June 30 of 1953. Just over 300 Corvettes were built--- hand—that first year.
OK, so now back to the women.
Ladies will often joke about a guy driving a hot car as trying to compensate for other, shall we say, “shortcomings”---but there seems to be no hesitation for most of them to jump in and take a ride, regardless of the Neanderthal in the driver’s seat.
I doubt that the reverse is true, however. Is there a woman out there who would NOT leap at the chance to take a drive with, say, George Clooney, even if the “ride” he was using was a ’69 Buick station wagon (with fake wood paneling)?
I think not.
Of course, this makes women look rather shallow, but what does it also say about men?
Namely, that we don’t have to be funny, interesting, good looking or kind. We, in fact, can be complete asses, as long as we have Italian driving gloves, cool shades and a hot sports car.
Here are a couple of vintage Corvette videos-the first is the original TV “commercial” for the 1953 Corvette. The second is from a decade later, as the 1963 ad has clearly migrated from sports car aficionados to sheer SEX APPEAL, which became the primary selling point, I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC8bwEQFx6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbxTHXUH4VE
Most of us have seen our share of middle-aged men trying to capture of spirit of their youth by tooling around in a sports car. The sunshine gleams off our bald heads as we wedge our portly frames into the bucket seats and challenge the teens and their muscle cars at every traffic light.
“Yeah! NOW, who’s cool!?”
Please shoot me if you ever see yours truly in this situation. While I cannot claim complete immunity from the outward manifestations of “midlife crisis”, it is another thing altogether to undergo this pain while making a complete ass out of myself in public.
Never mind. My wife will kill me before you get the chance.
If you’d like my blog in your inbox weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Sign up today. Chicks dig it.
It was on this date in 1952 that the very first Corvette, a production-ready prototype-was produced. GM Chief William Durant decided to build a small sports car after traveling to Europe and seeing the popularity of the speedy roadsters there. The first Corvette was reportedly modeled after a Jaguar and the prototype was said to have cost between $50,000 to $60,000 to build. The first production ‘Vette rolled off the assembly line on June 30 of 1953. Just over 300 Corvettes were built--- hand—that first year.
OK, so now back to the women.
Ladies will often joke about a guy driving a hot car as trying to compensate for other, shall we say, “shortcomings”---but there seems to be no hesitation for most of them to jump in and take a ride, regardless of the Neanderthal in the driver’s seat.
I doubt that the reverse is true, however. Is there a woman out there who would NOT leap at the chance to take a drive with, say, George Clooney, even if the “ride” he was using was a ’69 Buick station wagon (with fake wood paneling)?
I think not.
Of course, this makes women look rather shallow, but what does it also say about men?
Namely, that we don’t have to be funny, interesting, good looking or kind. We, in fact, can be complete asses, as long as we have Italian driving gloves, cool shades and a hot sports car.
Here are a couple of vintage Corvette videos-the first is the original TV “commercial” for the 1953 Corvette. The second is from a decade later, as the 1963 ad has clearly migrated from sports car aficionados to sheer SEX APPEAL, which became the primary selling point, I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC8bwEQFx6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbxTHXUH4VE
Most of us have seen our share of middle-aged men trying to capture of spirit of their youth by tooling around in a sports car. The sunshine gleams off our bald heads as we wedge our portly frames into the bucket seats and challenge the teens and their muscle cars at every traffic light.
“Yeah! NOW, who’s cool!?”
Please shoot me if you ever see yours truly in this situation. While I cannot claim complete immunity from the outward manifestations of “midlife crisis”, it is another thing altogether to undergo this pain while making a complete ass out of myself in public.
Never mind. My wife will kill me before you get the chance.
If you’d like my blog in your inbox weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Sign up today. Chicks dig it.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Life Before YouTube
Sometimes, it's interesting to remember what life was like before certain technological developments.
For me, it’s hard to imagine a world without e-mail (“when does the post office close?”), cell phones (“gotta find a payphone to make a call!”) and the internet (“you mean I have to CALL an airline to make a reservation?”)
These advances are largely taken for granted—we act as if we have always relied on these devices/services.
On a lesser level, the creation and worldwide adoption of YouTube as an on-demand source for entertainment and the common person’s access to almost everyone on Earth is maybe just a footnote.
It shouldn’t be.
Granted, perhaps 90% of YouTube’s content is drivel, but given there are millions of videos housed on those servers, even the 10% that's worthwhile accounts for untold millions of riveting video. Much of it is funny, but there are instructional, educational and historical videos that could occupy you for hours on end.
In fact, I rely heavily on YouTube daily to spice up the blog. The subject matter itself is often determined by what I happen to stumble upon when I go there daily.
Back to the funny stuff…here is a YouTube video of Jimmy Kimmel and Norah Jones doing a takeoff on the top YouTube videos of the year—in a novelty, holiday kind of way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGyIucmTcFw
That’s OK, but I don’t think they got anywhere near the best ones for 2009! If there is a YouTube video that you recommend for viewing, let me know! It could be the subject of a future blog.
Gotta run….Christmas shopping to do! A video camera, perhaps?
If you’d like this blog to arrive like magic in your inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
For me, it’s hard to imagine a world without e-mail (“when does the post office close?”), cell phones (“gotta find a payphone to make a call!”) and the internet (“you mean I have to CALL an airline to make a reservation?”)
These advances are largely taken for granted—we act as if we have always relied on these devices/services.
On a lesser level, the creation and worldwide adoption of YouTube as an on-demand source for entertainment and the common person’s access to almost everyone on Earth is maybe just a footnote.
It shouldn’t be.
Granted, perhaps 90% of YouTube’s content is drivel, but given there are millions of videos housed on those servers, even the 10% that's worthwhile accounts for untold millions of riveting video. Much of it is funny, but there are instructional, educational and historical videos that could occupy you for hours on end.
In fact, I rely heavily on YouTube daily to spice up the blog. The subject matter itself is often determined by what I happen to stumble upon when I go there daily.
Back to the funny stuff…here is a YouTube video of Jimmy Kimmel and Norah Jones doing a takeoff on the top YouTube videos of the year—in a novelty, holiday kind of way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGyIucmTcFw
That’s OK, but I don’t think they got anywhere near the best ones for 2009! If there is a YouTube video that you recommend for viewing, let me know! It could be the subject of a future blog.
Gotta run….Christmas shopping to do! A video camera, perhaps?
If you’d like this blog to arrive like magic in your inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, December 18, 2009
Novelty Christmas Songs
After several weeks of being in “full Christmas mode” on 94.9 WHOM, we’ve gotten a sense of those Christmas songs that cause the phones to go CRAZY!
In almost every case, it’s the novelty tunes that burn up the request lines. Not sure why this is the case, but the offbeat, funny and silly holiday songs are getting the lion’s share of song suggestions.
Although this is not scientific, I would rank the Top Requests on 94.9 WHOM to be the following:
1) “Dominic The Donkey”-Lou Monte (yes, the Italian Christmas Donkey is still tops!)
2) “12 Days of Christmas”-Straight No Chaser (this was #1 last year-and is VERY
close to the ass in first place)
3) “12 Pains Of Christmas”-Bob Rivers (this DJ from Baltimore hit pay dirt years
ago with this one-now a novelty “classic”)
4) “The Chipmunk Song”-Alvin & The Chipmunks (yeah, it’s from the 60’s, but as
popular as ever due to the Chipmunk movies)
5) “12 Gifts of Christmas”-Alan Sherman (this too is from the 60’s-and although the
“gifts” may be a bit outdated, i.e. transistor radio—it is still funny!)
6) “Snoopy’s Christmas”-Royal Guardsmen (almost NOT a novelty song-gets its
share of calls)
7) “You’re A Mean One, Mr. Grinch”-Thurl Ravenscroft (deep throat scores a hit
thanks to the classic TV show)
8) “We Need A Little Christmas”-The Muppets (again, aside from some puppet
voices, this fits in fine with everything else)
A new entry is the latest from Straight No Chaser. It’s called “The Christmas Can-Can”!
Here is the video, which is also featured at http://www.949whom.com/:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZveAyEMWJ0
Of course, the above list doesn’t begin to cover the Christmas novelty tunes. There are others we will stick in there, but the short list below tends to generate more COMPLAINTS than requests. In no particular order, they are:
1) “Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer”-Elmo & Patsy (Grandpa, broken up by
the tragedy, is still drinking beer and watching football, but thankfully now believes in Santa. Nice.)
2) “Jingle Bells”-The Singing Dogs (a minute and a half of dogs barking-after a couple of listens, you might prefer a German Shepard chewing on your leg for a minute and a half than to hear it again)
3) “All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth”-Spike Jones (Chipmunks do an annoying version of this too)
4) “I Want A Hippopotamus for Christmas”-Gayla Peevey (just imagine house-breaking that critter)
So, I hope you’re not TOO disappointed that the short list above hardly ever makes it on the air!
And, a little “program note”: 94.9 WHOM will be playing 100% Christmas music COMMERCIAL FREE from noon on Thursday, December 24th right through Christmas Day! Yes, “Home For The Holidays” will be in it’s 20th year this Christmas-our little gift to you!!!
Listen over the air—or stream it LIVE on the website at http://www.949whom.com/!
If you would like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Merry Christmas!!
In almost every case, it’s the novelty tunes that burn up the request lines. Not sure why this is the case, but the offbeat, funny and silly holiday songs are getting the lion’s share of song suggestions.
Although this is not scientific, I would rank the Top Requests on 94.9 WHOM to be the following:
1) “Dominic The Donkey”-Lou Monte (yes, the Italian Christmas Donkey is still tops!)
2) “12 Days of Christmas”-Straight No Chaser (this was #1 last year-and is VERY
close to the ass in first place)
3) “12 Pains Of Christmas”-Bob Rivers (this DJ from Baltimore hit pay dirt years
ago with this one-now a novelty “classic”)
4) “The Chipmunk Song”-Alvin & The Chipmunks (yeah, it’s from the 60’s, but as
popular as ever due to the Chipmunk movies)
5) “12 Gifts of Christmas”-Alan Sherman (this too is from the 60’s-and although the
“gifts” may be a bit outdated, i.e. transistor radio—it is still funny!)
6) “Snoopy’s Christmas”-Royal Guardsmen (almost NOT a novelty song-gets its
share of calls)
7) “You’re A Mean One, Mr. Grinch”-Thurl Ravenscroft (deep throat scores a hit
thanks to the classic TV show)
8) “We Need A Little Christmas”-The Muppets (again, aside from some puppet
voices, this fits in fine with everything else)
A new entry is the latest from Straight No Chaser. It’s called “The Christmas Can-Can”!
Here is the video, which is also featured at http://www.949whom.com/:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZveAyEMWJ0
Of course, the above list doesn’t begin to cover the Christmas novelty tunes. There are others we will stick in there, but the short list below tends to generate more COMPLAINTS than requests. In no particular order, they are:
1) “Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer”-Elmo & Patsy (Grandpa, broken up by
the tragedy, is still drinking beer and watching football, but thankfully now believes in Santa. Nice.)
2) “Jingle Bells”-The Singing Dogs (a minute and a half of dogs barking-after a couple of listens, you might prefer a German Shepard chewing on your leg for a minute and a half than to hear it again)
3) “All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth”-Spike Jones (Chipmunks do an annoying version of this too)
4) “I Want A Hippopotamus for Christmas”-Gayla Peevey (just imagine house-breaking that critter)
So, I hope you’re not TOO disappointed that the short list above hardly ever makes it on the air!
And, a little “program note”: 94.9 WHOM will be playing 100% Christmas music COMMERCIAL FREE from noon on Thursday, December 24th right through Christmas Day! Yes, “Home For The Holidays” will be in it’s 20th year this Christmas-our little gift to you!!!
Listen over the air—or stream it LIVE on the website at http://www.949whom.com/!
If you would like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Merry Christmas!!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Health Reform Is Making Me Sick
OK, I am now officially LOST in the debate over Health Care reform.
My guess is that you are too.
In fact, it has gotten so bad that I cannot even interpret TV ads for and against as being from any particular group. Is that one being paid for by the Republicans, the Insurance companies or progressive Democrats? Who knows?
The bill being batted around in the Senate hardly resembles anything that it’s supporters originally proposed. In fact, no one really knows for certain what will happen, even though the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says it will have a net positive impact on the deficit, actually reducing it.
Of course, what we don’t know is the effect on COSTS to families. The addition of 30 million uninsured to the ranks of “now covered” is certainly a positive, as is the moratorium on exclusion due to pre-existing conditions.
What isn’t so clear is the cost to patients who have the so-called “high risk factors”. For instance, if someone has diabetes, the opponents to the bill say that insurance companies have no limits imposed on the rates they could—and would charge these patients. What good is being accepted by the insurance companies for coverage if you cannot afford it? Have we handed the insurance companies 30 million new customers with no constraints or competitive pressure for them to keep premiums down?
The public option is now OUT—perhaps removing the incentive to compete that would keep costs down. Buy-in to Medicare is also gone. What is left of the plan that Democrats originally embraced?
Check out this clever video “overview” of the issue—despite being produced by an insurance company, it at least “seems” like an objective primer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfZfgkX6uEk
Americans who elected President Obama largely on the belief that sweeping reform would occur are now becoming some of the biggest critics of the seemingly one-sided compromises.
When Howard Dean and Rush Limbaugh are in agreement on health care, there is a SERIOUS problem. One gets the feeling that the President wants something to sign, ANY bill that will allow him to claim “victory”. However, those is his own party have been increasingly critical of the bill—and his perceived lack of participation in the process by allowing Congress to battle it out without some arm-twisting from the Executive Branch is now being viewed as a vacuum in leadership.
One of the more interesting comments I have heard goes something like this:
The President has truly attempted to have Health Care Reform be perceived as a bi-partisan product. This may be why he left things largely to Congress. The stark truth is that no matter WHAT bill became law, Republicans would attack it unmercifully. As such, with regard to political reality, he was in a no win situation with the Republicans. Nevertheless, the majority party Democrats have increasingly compromised the bill with concessions to the minority party—a party that some believe has NO DESIRE to bargain in good faith anyway. As a group, Republicans would rather see the bill-any bill—go down to defeat. The positive effects politically (demonstrating even a majority of Democrats cannot govern) are too enticing, not to mention the delight of the health insurance lobby that has strangled health care reform for generations. This “death by a thousand paper cuts” effect has now created a rift with progressive Democrats.
So, the right is against the President and the bill. The far Left is deeply dissatisfied. And the Independents are already heading for the doors.
The fair question to ask then, is this: With a Democratic majority—and the process of reconciliation (the so-called “nuclear option”) available, not to mention the power of the President and his office, why doesn’t Obama simply ramrod the bill through Congress?
Don’t get me started about Joe Leiberman---if ONE man can bring this entire process down, we have a huge issue with the way this legislation has been handled.
I still don’t know where I stand, since there are arguments-plausible on both sides—as to what the effects of the current bill will be. Who the hell knows?
I do know that a bad bill IS worse than no bill—and we better be sure that whatever happens, we adhere to the Hippocratic oath of “first, do no harm”
President Obama has staked his presidency on this legislation. Failure to lead a bill that can unite his own party may make his stay in the White House a one term affair.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
My guess is that you are too.
In fact, it has gotten so bad that I cannot even interpret TV ads for and against as being from any particular group. Is that one being paid for by the Republicans, the Insurance companies or progressive Democrats? Who knows?
The bill being batted around in the Senate hardly resembles anything that it’s supporters originally proposed. In fact, no one really knows for certain what will happen, even though the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says it will have a net positive impact on the deficit, actually reducing it.
Of course, what we don’t know is the effect on COSTS to families. The addition of 30 million uninsured to the ranks of “now covered” is certainly a positive, as is the moratorium on exclusion due to pre-existing conditions.
What isn’t so clear is the cost to patients who have the so-called “high risk factors”. For instance, if someone has diabetes, the opponents to the bill say that insurance companies have no limits imposed on the rates they could—and would charge these patients. What good is being accepted by the insurance companies for coverage if you cannot afford it? Have we handed the insurance companies 30 million new customers with no constraints or competitive pressure for them to keep premiums down?
The public option is now OUT—perhaps removing the incentive to compete that would keep costs down. Buy-in to Medicare is also gone. What is left of the plan that Democrats originally embraced?
Check out this clever video “overview” of the issue—despite being produced by an insurance company, it at least “seems” like an objective primer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfZfgkX6uEk
Americans who elected President Obama largely on the belief that sweeping reform would occur are now becoming some of the biggest critics of the seemingly one-sided compromises.
When Howard Dean and Rush Limbaugh are in agreement on health care, there is a SERIOUS problem. One gets the feeling that the President wants something to sign, ANY bill that will allow him to claim “victory”. However, those is his own party have been increasingly critical of the bill—and his perceived lack of participation in the process by allowing Congress to battle it out without some arm-twisting from the Executive Branch is now being viewed as a vacuum in leadership.
One of the more interesting comments I have heard goes something like this:
The President has truly attempted to have Health Care Reform be perceived as a bi-partisan product. This may be why he left things largely to Congress. The stark truth is that no matter WHAT bill became law, Republicans would attack it unmercifully. As such, with regard to political reality, he was in a no win situation with the Republicans. Nevertheless, the majority party Democrats have increasingly compromised the bill with concessions to the minority party—a party that some believe has NO DESIRE to bargain in good faith anyway. As a group, Republicans would rather see the bill-any bill—go down to defeat. The positive effects politically (demonstrating even a majority of Democrats cannot govern) are too enticing, not to mention the delight of the health insurance lobby that has strangled health care reform for generations. This “death by a thousand paper cuts” effect has now created a rift with progressive Democrats.
So, the right is against the President and the bill. The far Left is deeply dissatisfied. And the Independents are already heading for the doors.
The fair question to ask then, is this: With a Democratic majority—and the process of reconciliation (the so-called “nuclear option”) available, not to mention the power of the President and his office, why doesn’t Obama simply ramrod the bill through Congress?
Don’t get me started about Joe Leiberman---if ONE man can bring this entire process down, we have a huge issue with the way this legislation has been handled.
I still don’t know where I stand, since there are arguments-plausible on both sides—as to what the effects of the current bill will be. Who the hell knows?
I do know that a bad bill IS worse than no bill—and we better be sure that whatever happens, we adhere to the Hippocratic oath of “first, do no harm”
President Obama has staked his presidency on this legislation. Failure to lead a bill that can unite his own party may make his stay in the White House a one term affair.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Christmas Light Wars
Every neighborhood has one.
One house where the “spirit of the season” means enough Christmas lights to illuminate a small city. Often added into this gaudy display are the plastic Santa’s and fake reindeer (nice touch if actually on the roof). Of course, there are elves, giant candy canes, wrapped presents, etc.
If there is even a hint of religious fervor, there could be a Nativity scene wedged in between the flashing-nose Rudolph and the inflatable snow-globe contraptions that have become so popular.
Nice.
The kids love these displays—and so do many adults, evidenced by the parking problems caused by traffic in otherwise quiet neighborhoods when folks descend like locusts to “oooh and ahhh”.
Don’t call me a Grinch—I secretly enjoy the fruits of the labor of these crazy people who risk life and limb stringing lights off the highest places on their homes. I stare in wonder as I try to fathom which chromosome aberration causes the desire to have their homes be visible from outer space.
Forget the cost of the lights themselves. Think of the electricity they are burning through! Maybe a spotlight on the spinning meter outside the house would make for another riveting sight!
More intriguing than the isolated homes with staggering displays are those neighborhoods where it has clearly become a competition. Otherwise sane people somehow crack under the holiday pressure to “out-do” the next-door neighbor. Like the U.S and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the acquisition and deployment of Christmas decorations escalates to a level that threatens to take out the nearest power grid.
Checkout these two quick videos of rather EXTENSIVE displays:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8AUsmse15o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0s3sQt-mmA
Used as the grist for comedy (“Christmas Vacation” with the Griswolds) and TV commercials (Audi spot running now, where the owner of a pair of Audis outshines his warring neighbors and their Xmas displays), the dynamic of grown men stooping to this childish “one-upsmanship” would be funnier if it weren’t so pathetic.
Some of the more involved practitioners actually set their flashing displays to music-broadcast on low power FM transmitters that allow gawkers to listen on their car radios as they gape.
As for me, one or two strings of pretty lights convey my acknowledgment of the season and my “Christmas spirit”.
And, unlike my overzealous neighbors, I will be able to pay my power bill in January.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
One house where the “spirit of the season” means enough Christmas lights to illuminate a small city. Often added into this gaudy display are the plastic Santa’s and fake reindeer (nice touch if actually on the roof). Of course, there are elves, giant candy canes, wrapped presents, etc.
If there is even a hint of religious fervor, there could be a Nativity scene wedged in between the flashing-nose Rudolph and the inflatable snow-globe contraptions that have become so popular.
Nice.
The kids love these displays—and so do many adults, evidenced by the parking problems caused by traffic in otherwise quiet neighborhoods when folks descend like locusts to “oooh and ahhh”.
Don’t call me a Grinch—I secretly enjoy the fruits of the labor of these crazy people who risk life and limb stringing lights off the highest places on their homes. I stare in wonder as I try to fathom which chromosome aberration causes the desire to have their homes be visible from outer space.
Forget the cost of the lights themselves. Think of the electricity they are burning through! Maybe a spotlight on the spinning meter outside the house would make for another riveting sight!
More intriguing than the isolated homes with staggering displays are those neighborhoods where it has clearly become a competition. Otherwise sane people somehow crack under the holiday pressure to “out-do” the next-door neighbor. Like the U.S and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the acquisition and deployment of Christmas decorations escalates to a level that threatens to take out the nearest power grid.
Checkout these two quick videos of rather EXTENSIVE displays:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8AUsmse15o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0s3sQt-mmA
Used as the grist for comedy (“Christmas Vacation” with the Griswolds) and TV commercials (Audi spot running now, where the owner of a pair of Audis outshines his warring neighbors and their Xmas displays), the dynamic of grown men stooping to this childish “one-upsmanship” would be funnier if it weren’t so pathetic.
Some of the more involved practitioners actually set their flashing displays to music-broadcast on low power FM transmitters that allow gawkers to listen on their car radios as they gape.
As for me, one or two strings of pretty lights convey my acknowledgment of the season and my “Christmas spirit”.
And, unlike my overzealous neighbors, I will be able to pay my power bill in January.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
