FIRST AMENDMENT, COPYRIGHT AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Go ninja, go ninja go.

As I am a fan of a wide variety of music genres, let me start off by saying that I love sampling. I’ve loved it since the first time I heard the album Paul’s Boutique by The Beastie Boys, which isn’t so much a traditional collection of songs, as it is a densely packed collage of music taken from over 200 different sources, in order to create a nostalgic love letter to New York and disco. It truly made me understand the importance of sampling as a way to take previously created art, twist it, skew it, cut it up, and arrange it in a way that creates something entirely new. This is why I found Brett Gaylor’s appreciation of Girl Talk in RiP!: A Remix Manifesto so interesting. Specifically, how he described the enormous expenses of sampling. The Beastie Boys had the advantage of making Paul’s Boutique in 1989, when getting the rights to sample a song was much more affordable. Today the cost of sampling is so high that really only the wealthiest of musicians bother, like Kanye West and Rick Rubin. This is a real tragedy, and because of the extremely high cost, it seems no artist will be able to create sample-heavy albums like Paul’s Boutique, De La Soul’s 3 Feet High and Rising, or DJ Shadow’s Endtroducing….. ever again. Public Enemy’s It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back. There, I’m done name-dropping. Now that I’ve gotten my love of the technique out of the way, I’m going to discuss a case where sampling went horribly wrong. Actually, it might be the most well-known example, as I don’t think there’s been a three month period in my entire life where I haven’t heard the words “Stop. Collaborate and listen”.

You can’t have a discussion about ill-advised sampling without talking about the unofficial king of the practice, Vanilla Ice. I’ve put a lot of thought into this, and I still don’t fully understand how he actually believed he was going to get away with sampling “Under Pressure” without giving royalties to Queen and David Bowie. I mean, if you’re going to try to gyp an artist on a sample, why would you use one of the most recognizable bass lines of all time. It’s like sampling the riff from “Smoke on the Water” and then trying to deny it’s Deep Purple. You can lie about it all you want but in the end you’re not fooling anyone. However, all of my confusion about the “Ice Ice Baby” blunder cleared-up when I discovered this one fact; the song was never meant to be a hit. It was supposed to be a random B-side that would go under the recording industry’s radar. Unfortunately it became a huge success and Vanilla Ice ended up giving both writing credits and royalties to Bowie and Queen.

Now, why would I say that Vanilla Ice went too far when I’ve already established myself as a militant advocate for the sampling art form? Well, it stems from the fact that I appreciate quality over consistent ideology, and the sample in “Ice Ice Baby” isn’t very good. Vanilla Ice makes no attempt to weave the sample into the fabric of the music. Instead, he just dumps the bassline into the hook as a way to fill space between verses.  And just to be clear, I’m not saying I don’t like “Ice Ice Baby”. It’s way too catchy and way too stupid for me not to love it, but the sample is just so lazy. When Vanilla Ice wrote this song, he clearly treated sampling like the dumb 16 year old he was, without a shred of subtlety or invention. So basically my measurement for when I think sampling goes too far, is whether or not I like it. Is that fair? No. Is it unbiased? No. Does it make sense to determine copyright infringement based on an individual’s taste? No. But most importantly, do I care? And the answer is…

Reply to Justin:

Good review man. I've been a fan of South Park since I was 10, when I would watch it in secret late at night to avoid my parents from knowing. Back then I just laughed at the crassness of it all, but now I respect the show for its willingness to critique essentially any aspect relating to pop-culture, without any real agenda aside from pointing out things the creators find absurd.
I appreciate that you gave the episode a positive review even though you said the episode didn't make you laugh as much as usual. It shows that you understand that South Park can do more than just make you laugh, and instead can provide a different and, usually, insightful perspective on popular issues.
Also, the Yelp lawsuit turned out to be total bullshit. See here.
http://www.snopes.com/south-park-yelp-lawsuit/
I was fooled too until I found this. Too bad, would have been cool to see the lawsuit play out.

Dr. Ken or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate Ken Jeong

Can we do away with the laugh track already? I mean seriously, the thing has been a blight on television for long enough, giving writers a safety net for terrible jokes by letting the home audience know when something was supposed to be funny. I can’t think of anything more insulting to my intelligence then being told when to laugh. I mention this because in this post I will be looking at ABC’s new sitcom Dr. Ken, a show where the first example of canned laughter comes 5 seconds into the episode. And what could have been so funny that the audience fell into near-hysterics, almost from get go? Well, a character wearing a hoodie walks into frame, and says “Rain, are you kidding me?”. It’s all downhill from there.

Dr. Ken is the brainchild of its star Ken Jeong, a man you might remember as that unfunny character in The Hangover. Or maybe from being the least funny actor on Community. Though his worst performance was reserved for Transformers 3, where he was one of the best parts of that movie, accentuating how terrible the Transformers franchise really is. But anyway, Dr. Ken is said to be about Jeong’s real-life career as a doctor before he became a comedian. What it actually is, is an unsatisfying mélange of various sitcom tropes and clichés. A bad-mannered family man as the main character. Check. A wife who is basically there just to say “I told you so” at the end of every episode. Check. An array of wacky side characters, each with a single defining trait. Check. It’s like if you took The Honeymooners, subtracted any effort for quality, and moved the family from lower New York to upper class suburbia. Though that description would be apt for almost all post-Cosby Show sitcoms… I may be rambling. Wait, wasn’t this assignment supposed to be about advertising?

I saw Dr. Ken on Friday, October 16 at around 8 PM. I had never seen the show before so I ended up jumping in at the third episode, but I’m willing to bet I didn’t miss much. Most of the commercials seemed to focus on an older audience, specifically parents. We have ads for Verizon and Sprint describing their new family plans, Hawaii vacation ads for you and your kids, and plenty of other commercials that feature a traditional, happy, nuclear family. The older audience theme continues with several advertisements for medicine and multivitamins, including Theraflu and Xifaxan. There’s also the obligatory car ad brought to us by Chevrolet, and a yogurt ad that’s convinced only middle aged housewives eat the stuff. All of this makes sense when we consider the nature of the show. A traditional sitcom, shot on hollow sets in front of a live studio audience, depicting a family in turmoil. It’s a dime a dozen, but I suppose if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The episode had nearly six million viewers, and the show’s Facebook has over 250,000 likes. These facts get more depressing the longer I think about them. There’s also an official twitter account that's updated daily with clips and pictures from the show, for its surprisingly low 18 thousand followers. Most of the retweets the page gets are from a small and loyal group of fans, who seemingly have a legitimate love for the show’s humor and simple family values. Like David Lay/@DLaysWorld, who tweets,

“@DrKenABC @kenjeong  @AlbertTsai #HappyThanksGiving fromAustralia. It's so entertaining can't wait to watch it. You rock Albert &Ken”,

or Marven/@MarvenEuler, who enthusiastically writes,

“@DrKenABC @kenjeong #DRKEN#dunkfail Looks funny, can't wait to see it @alberttsai”.

The poor, misguided souls. 

Anyway, back to why this show is the worst thing to happen to television since the Star Wars Holiday Special. Ken Jeong plays the title character of course, a discourteous doctor, husband, and father. He’s like Dr. House without the wit, intelligence, drug problem, or really anything that made House a compelling character. Ken has a wife (played by Suzy Nakamura), two children (played by Krista Marie Yu and Albert Tsai), co-workers (played by Tisha Campbell-Martin, Jonathan Slavin, and Kate Simses), and a boss named Pat (played by Dave Foley). Poor, poor Dave Foley. The Kids in the Hall royalties must not be paying like they used to, since his net worth seems to be 500 grand in the hole at the moment. At least it’s nice to know someone on this program used to have talent, with emphasis on the used to part. Now he just kind of smiles at the camera, reads his lines, and cashes his check. So sad. Foley’s character ended up being the main focus of the episode I was unfortunate enough to watch. The plot centers on the fact that Pat changed the hospital’s work schedule so all of Dr. Ken’s co-workers had to come in on Saturdays. Ken tries to alleviate this issue by having a meeting with Pat, only to discover Pat’s wife has recently left him, and that he is trying to seriously injure himself for her attention. A cheap imitation of hilarity ensues. There’s also a b-plot about how the kids in the son’s class are calling him insulting nick-names. This side story doesn’t really get resolved, so much as it quietly peters out in the hope that the audience isn’t paying attention. And why would they be, it’s not like the show is funny or anything.

On the subject of humor, Dr. Ken has some of the worst jokes I think I’ve ever heard on primetime television. In fact, it feels wrong to even call them jokes, because they don’t follow any sort of set-up/punch-line structure. Most of the show is just Jeong incessantly mugging at the camera, and spouting groan worthy attempts at catch phrases. It’s as if he’s actively trying to blur the line between self-parody, and honest-to-god contempt for the audience. But even with his clown-like antics, the show is still so unintentionally mean spirited. Every joke feels like it’s meant to be at the expense of someone else. For example, a recurring joke in the episode is that Ken keeps bossing around a hospital valet named Juan, who is, of course, played by a Mexican actor forcing an overly flamboyant accent. The only time we even see the valet is when he’s being ordered around by the doctor, doing things like parking his car, and getting him bagels, which Juan calls “Jewish donuts”. There’s also the issue of Ken’s gay co-worker, who we know is gay because he talks with feminine mannerisms, loves the mall, and hugs his male friends for an uncomfortably long time.  It’s a far cry from being Will and Grace bad, but it’s unfortunate that gay characters in sitcoms are still one-dimensionally defined by their sexual preference. But that’s not to say I think any of the writers are racist or homophobic. These problems are more likely the result of laziness and a lack of talent then hate.

Okay, so what did I like about the show? Very little is the short answer. I guess the actresses who play the daughter and the wife do as much as they can with the material they’re given. The show makes up for this near-competence with the child actor playing the son, who must to be a nephew of a producer because there’s no other explanation for why they put him in front of a camera. I don’t enjoy ridiculing a kid for his acting chops, because he has to be trying his best, but he just sounds so wooden and awkward in every scene. It’s like he’s an alien in a human suit.

I’ve bitched about this show for a little over a thousand words now, so I think I’m done. It’s safe to say I would not recommend that people, or any sentient life for that matter, watch Dr. Ken. My disdain is warranted apparently, as the show currently holds a 7% on Rotten Tomatoes, and a 26% on Metacritic. And I’m still not convinced those positive reviews are written by real people. Seriously, two of them aren’t even actual critiques. One’s a “Fall TV Preview” of a variety of shows including Dr. Who and SNL, while the other is a website analyzing how appropriate Dr. Ken is for children. Essentially every other review on RT is negative, with some relying on painful medicine puns like “Dr. Ken will make you sick”, or “Please, someone, pull the plug”. That last one’s a bit too morose, I feel. I would not have advised a pun involving a mercy killing.
Shows like Dr. Ken almost make me feel guilty about making negative remarks towards The Big Bang Theory. Almost. If I were a visitor to the U.S. from another country, and I saw this show, I would go back home. Actually, I would probably just assume America had a weird sense of humor and too much money to burn. Anyhow, I think I’m going to take a break from network television for a while. It’s not a safe place to be right now. Maybe I’ll watch The Wire again. Yeah, that’ll be nice.

This is a video of LIES!

PERSUASIVE TECHNIQUES

                I’m pretty ignorant at the moment when it comes to currently running advertisements. You see, because I installed ad-blocker and DVR TV shows, the only ads I can remember seeing in the last few months are film trailers at movie theaters. For this reason, I will precede to bitch about a kid’s movie, and let you know why the new James Bond trailer makes me wish I was born British.

Most convincing argument I've found in favor of global warming.

                No joke, I only saw this trailer because the theater I watched The Martian in, messed up and accidentally showed the previews that play before Hotel Transylvania 2. It’s sad to know that the only reason I’m aware of this movie’s existence, is likely the result of some mistake made by a teenager getting paid minimum wage. The film’s called Norm of the North, and the trailer pisses me off way more than it probably should. It features incredibly unfunny non-jokes, ugly and awkward animation (the voices don’t even sync up to the mouth movements for god’s sake), and a main character voiced by Rob Schneider. I’ll let that last one sink in. I suppose the target audience for this trailer is little kids, but I think the filmmakers forgot that children don’t buy movie tickets. If I was a parent I would try to keep my kid as far away from this movie as humanly possible. I hear the moon is pretty nice this time of year. I’m not even close to the only one with this opinion either. The YouTube comments section for the trailer is filled with people ranting about how bad it is. My only hope is that the moon isn’t too crowded by the time I get there. It’s an example of an ad attempting humor, but failing so severely that it turns into irritation before the ad even ends.

More of the same. The same meaning good.

                Now, I’m going to cleanse my palate by discussing the trailer for the new 007 movie, SPECTRE, and explain why it kicks a tremendous amount of ass. The plot of the film is, who gives a shit, helicopter corkscrew stunt. Okay, maybe that’s not entirely fair, but it’s rare that an action movie can show me something I’ve never seen before. I don’t even care if it’s CGI, it 31 different flavors of awesome. Anyway, back on topic. The trailer debuted in July, and if memory serves me right played before movies like Ant-Man and Mission Impossible. The target audience is apparently fans of action movies but that’s pretty much most movie goers now, so it seems to be preaching to the choir in that regard. The important thing the trailer does is let the audience know the movie is coming out soon, and to keep that knowledge fresh in people’s minds come release date. As far as persuasive techniques go, it kind of tells a story, or at least hints at one. I’m not sure which technique applies to “you’re probably going to see this anyway, here’s an explosion”.

TWITTER/FACEBOOK AND ADVERTISING/PR

In fitting with the theme I set in last week’s blog post, this week I’m going to delve deeper into Coca-Cola’s Twitter feed and hopefully discover why I am physically compelled to ingest elephantine levels of the stuff daily. This venture initially proved more complicated than expected, as Coca-Cola has more than one Twitter account. Actually, that’s a bit of an understatement. The company has more Twitter accounts than I could have imagined, far more than just the expected pages for Coke and Diet Coke. This includes separate accounts for The Coca-Cola Co., World of Coca-Cola, Coca-Cola Music, Coca-Cola Racing, Coca-Cola Freestyle, and a few major variation on their product from Coke Life to Coke Zero. Oh, but it doesn’t stop there. There are also Twitter accounts for individual countries, so we have Coca-Cola Germany, Coca-Cola France, Coca-Cola Great Britain, the list goes on. Not to mention there are accounts for other Coke flavors in different countries, which gives us pages like Coca-Cola Zero Chile, and Diet Coke Canada. I mean, damn. Coke has went to great lengths to make sure that no matter what preference you may have, or nationality you may be, there’s a Coca-Cola Twitter page for you. I understand, people aren’t going to brain-wash themselves.

                Now that we’ve established Coke has more Twitter pages than there are stars in our galaxy, the interesting part is seeing how each Twitter page is unique. Having so many different Twitter pages has allowed Coca-Cola to target individual markets, changing their ads to appeal to specific demographics. For instance, the company’s main Twitter page is running an ad campaign right now using the hashtags #NationalComingOutDay and #ProudToHavePride, attempting to appeal to the LBGT community (or, you know, anybody who isn’t an asshole). The response the ad is getting is very positive, and it allows Coke to associate itself with social acceptance, but the ad also highlights an interesting trick to Coca-Cola’s advertising. This Twitter page mostly focuses on American users, so it can be assumed this ad wouldn’t be posted on a Coca-Cola page that targets a country with less developed opinions on gay rights. Coca-Cola Russia for example. I went to Coke’s Russian Twitter page and sure enough, the Proud to Have Pride ad is nowhere in sight. However, I did find an ad celebrating Russia’s qualification in the 2016 UEFA European Championship. Of course, this ad didn’t run on the American Twitter page because most American’s don’t watch soccer. Instead, the page has ads promoting the FedEx Cup of the PGA Tour. I am not one of the people who can be blamed for this switch however, as I will likely watch neither.

Translates to: Coke adds life, where there isn't any.

                The concept from What Would Google Do? that really stood out to me this week was the idea that the future of business lies in great products and great customer service, not great advertising. Personally, whenever I make a significant purchase, I check online to get an idea of the products quality. I look up consumer reports, and if possible professional reviews, to try to make sure I’ll be satisfied with my purchase. This principal extends further than just large purchases. If my friends and I are trying to decide what to get for dinner, we might search Yelp or Google reviews to help us find quality food. And then we’ll end up going to Taco Bell because it’s close, it’s open, and we hate ourselves.  But the point is we try to take quality into consideration, and I can’t recall the last time I made a purchase solely based on the strength of an ad. 

"WWGD?"

A concept from What Would Google Do that stuck out to me was from the section Everybody Needs Google Juice in the chapter New Publicness. Jarvis mentions how websites can become enemies of Google by creating spam blogs to try to game the system. These “splogs”, as he calls them, are filled with automatically generated links to a single website, skewing Google’s algorithms and making that website seem more popular than it actually is.

This idea of splogs made me remember something that happened to one of my favorite websites a few years ago. In my formative high school years I, like many other sheltered Caucasian teenagers, took an interest in hip-hop music (Wu-Tang Forever!). And being as shielded as I was, many of the slang terms abundant in rap songs were completely foreign to me. Thankfully, there was website seemingly tailored made for people of my disposition called RapGenius.com. It’s a lyrics website that offers users the ability to annotate sections of songs in order to define meaning or give interpretations. It’s great for people with a turbulent understanding of Ebonics. All was well, until December 2013, when I found that the website had disappeared from Google’s results page. Turns out, the creators of Rap Genius were doing exactly what Jeff Jarvis described, creating fake blog links to trick Google into moving the site further up the results page. Eventually the creators apologized and the website was added back to the search results, more popular than ever. Good thing too, now I don’t have to go to Urban Dictionary to find out what the word “steez” means.

The first statement Jeff Jarvis replies to about the internet is “There is junk on the Internet”. Jarvis responds by saying that while he agrees that there is a lot of junk, it’s no different than the poor quality entertainment on bookshelves or television. He says that the internet shouldn’t be looked at as a well-produced T.V. show, but instead as a messy reflection of life. I agree with most of what he says here, but with a slight caveat. That being, I believe that even the junk is getting better. When I think back to what sort of content went viral over a decade ago, there’s a noticeable downgrade in quality from what the internet thinks is meme-worthy today. Back then, all we needed was a fat guy lip-syncing to Eurodance music in front of a webcam. Now, we need a fully produced music video by a Korean pop-star dancing like he’s riding a horse. Both are equally insane, but at least the production values are higher.

TWITTER/SOCIAL MEDIA

I didn’t have a twitter account before this assignment, and in turn felt like one of the last people on earth without one, so when I finally created an account the first person on my to-follow-list was Kanye West. I always appreciated his ability to have an ego that completely extinguish any sort of positive image the general public might have of him, while periodically creating music that makes nearly every other modern recording artist sound anemic by comparison. It’s that perfect blend of rock-stupid arrogance and undeniable brilliance that you’re just not going to get anywhere else. So it’s understandable why I’m disappointed to find that his twitter feed consists mostly of insipid inspirational messages, and photos of his clothing line. Yeezus works in mysterious ways.

After that, I wanted to follow an account that actually offered useful information instead of gratuitous displays of vanity. So, I started following The Washington Post. I have a history of shying away from news channels and websites, and hopefully this will help me become a less willfully ignorant person. Who Knows, I may finally learn what’s going on in the real world, god forbid.

Finally, I retreated back into my escapist nature and started following Metacritic. There’s something about the quality of art being measured in terms of percentage approval that comforts me. It’s like the website is somehow satisfying both the artistic and analytical sides of my brain at the same time. Also, it helps me bitch about the reviews I don’t agree with, because immaturity is fun.

A tweet that really caught my eye was from The Washington Post on October 5^th that read, “How Coca-Cola has tricked everyone into drinking so much of it”. The tweet had an intriguing effect on me, in that it made me look down suspiciously at the half empty can of Coke I was holding at the time. I think it’s the first time in my life I’ve ever been mistrustful of an inanimate object. The article the tweet linked to focuses on the parallels between the soda industry and the cigarette industry, because they both use clever marketing and the addictive nature of their product to make billions. It made me so shocked that I almost didn’t drink the rest of the can. I did though, because I’m an awful person.

I wasn’t exactly the best high school student. In fact, it’s safe to say that I was the antithesis of what my teachers would have wanted, not because I was disrespectful or unintelligent, but because I never showed up. I ended up missing about half the school days junior year, and partially because of this, I became a bit anti-social. This is the main reason why I’ve never had a Facebook. I didn’t have one in high school, and simply continue not to have one now. However, this doesn’t mean I obsessively rant against social networking sites. I understand the importance of displaying public opinion, and am confident that many social changes in the last ten years likely wouldn’t have occurred without the help of Facebook. This includes the election of Barack Obama, and the lift of the ban on same-sex marriage.