Adding Friends in Social Media: A How-To

After my recent Twitter etiquette guide, the question came in: what about following people? How does one do that properly?

Well, I've talked about this on my podcast a bit, but let me explain my theories a bit further here. Mind you, they are only my theories. Everyone does Twitter the way it works best for them.

I really think it's different, depending on which form of social media you are using. For example, on Facebook, which I use mostly for friends and family and business colleagues, I don't just add people helter-skelter (1,268 friends). Remember, Facebook has a max cap of 5000 friends, but this includes friends AND things you are fans of. So if you have a lot of fan pages, those add into your 5000 total.

So on Facebook, I evaluate each new Friend Request carefully. Is this person friends with people I know? Someone I do business with? What are their interests? Similar to mine? Politics? Etc. What compels me to add this person? I can promise you that someone with no profile (barely a profile) and/or no picture in their avatar is someone I will Ignore. I've also taken to ignoring people from India and the Phillippines because for awhile, it seemed like the spammy stuff was coming from these kinds of profiles.

I take nearly the opposite approach on my MySpace profile (20,000+ friends). I pretty much add anyone that asks (http://www.myspace.com/michebel). I don't add people who don't even take the time to put a picture in to represent themselves. Nor do I add obvious advertisements, instead marking them as Spam. I don't add people who look crazy or have violent avatars. Other than that, you're pretty much in with me, no matter who you are. That said, I would say that 90% of the people who request friendship are bands, asking me to listen to their music. I don't. I'll add them, but that's it.

Blocking is my friend. If bands take the proper approach and send their music to me through the MySpace email, wonderful. If they spam my comments with it (and people do this a lot when you have 20,000 friends), they get ONE chance to do that, and then I block them. I have more people on my block list on MySpace than many people have friends (2000+).

The dealbreakers for me in comments are: people who post self-playing music players, anything at all that looks like an ad, people who post every other day to your comments section (Happy Thursday!). Other than that, they can post as they like. If you check my comments section, there is some pretty trippy stuff. You should see the stuff I delete! Man!

But as a social media site, I spend the least amount of time on MySpace. I never check my mail there (since it is all bands). I never devote any serious time there anymore. It's been usurped by Facebook and Twitter.

Which brings us to Twitter. Twitter is somewhere in the middle. Initially, I added everyone (a MySpace approach), and quickly reached the (unmarked anywhere) limit of 2000 people followed (http://www.twitter.com/michebel). If you follow 2000, you can't follow anymore. Period. That proved very counterproductive. Since I hadn't known this when I started, my only option was to start another Twitter account (http://www.twitter.com/michebella). I wouldn't recommend this. I learned the hard way. It's much better to have one account and use it well.

So hopefully you can use my hard-learned advice in building your Twitter profile. 

For me, a good Twitter following list is well-crafted. Add people you know you want to follow (friends, family, colleagues). From that point, you want to build up a good strong list (at least 100 people, IMHO). On my Michebel account, I'm following 2,667 (I had over 3000 before they instituted the cap on followers.) On Michebella, I hover right around my max: 2,001. Can't add any past that.

Here's the situation with that. You can add up to 2000, basically, with no problems. You can add more when others start following you. For example, someone like Ashton Kutcher, who has 5,149,830 followers as I write this, COULD add that many that he is following. That would be a bit crazy, but would sure make for a lively Twitter stream.

Someone like Conan O'Brien, who famously is following ONE person, is an idiot who doesn't know how to use Twitter properly. No ONE person is fascinating enough that all you want to read is their Tweets. No one.

So you want a mix. What I look for in my stream is a combination of things I'm interested in (entertainment, music, comedy), people who are funny, people who are inspirational, political people, people up on current events, people who get Twitter.

Most of all, I think it's important that YOU not be bored with your Twitter stream. If you are sitting there, following only 10 of your closest friends and family, and no one's Tweeting anything, you're just staring at a blank screen, saying, I sure don't get this Twitter thing, you might wanna add some more folks.

Here's what I suggest. Take someone that you respect, whose Tweets are interesting/topical/funny to you, someone with a lot of friends, but someone who TWEETS. Don't use Oprah as an example. Love her, love her show, but she's terrible as a Twitter user. She still doesn't get it. Take, for example, someone who, when you look at their profile, you like or find funny or are interested in nearly every one of the things they Tweet. Use THAT person. Go to their list of people they are following, and cull from there.

And yes, it is more time-consuming, but I would suggest, especially initially, going through and reading, or at least glancing at, every profile of everyone you add. Look at that first page, and see if you are amused, then add them.

My former roommate was really struggling with Twitter, and she pretty much found everyone boring. I worry about her, and she's probably still not on Twitter. Twitter is an engagement medium, though. You give and others give back to you. If you're not interested in that, don't waste your time there.

But if you stay, you are looking for people you'd want to be friends with, hang out with, date, get to know socially, get a job from, just like in real life. If someone is a sports fanatic, and you loathe sports, you probably don't want them in your stream. No harm, no foul. It's your place, you craft it.

Personally, I banish Republicans and mommy bloggers from my stream. I'm sure they are wonderful people. I'm sure they have nice things to say, I just don't wanna hear "Joey just threw up" one more time. Some people take it very personally if you don't add them, or worse, unfollow them. Too bad.

It's your stream, you're reading it, it's gotta be vital to you. VITAL. And you're the one who makes it so. Today I rely on Twitter for my most current news, my sports scores, earthquake stats, news about celebrity deaths, all sorts of things I get there first before anywhere else.

I also make it a practice not to add companies that you know are going to spew ads at you, radio stations that just spew their playlist, things that in general are annoying. In fact, if you add someone that you think is fine, then they start spewing a bunch of crap, unfollow them. Without hesitation. Or if you read a bunch of Tweets from someone and they bore the crap out of you, unfollow them.

I cull my Twitter list now every day. Since I'm at my max of 2001, I add and delete people constantly, and keep a list of those I hear about that I want to follow, when I'm able to. It used to be proper Twitter etiquette that anyone who followed you, you could automatically follow, but that's fallen out of fashion (in my case, only because of the Twitter limits). There was talk of Twitter possibly adding a feature where you could automatically add those who followed you, but it hasn't happened so far.

People sometimes ask if it's difficult to read the stream of 2001 people. No, because not everyone's every Tweet shows up. I wish they had the Facebook feature where you could highlight those you REALLY want to read every Tweet from, and let others fall where they may.

I will say this, with 2001 people, there is always an interesting mix of stuff coming over Twitter. I have people on my list from all over the world, so my Twitter never sleeps (if you only add people in your area, your Twitter will be dead for eight hours a night). I personally think you need to be following at least 1000 people to have a good mix, but everyone's view on this is different.

Would I follow 25,000 people if I was able to? Certainly.

Also, if you are tired of culling through profiles one by one, and just want a bunch of suggestions of who to follow, try these things. 

1. Lists

Good Twitter users have developed lists for the people on their stream. This is really good for job hunters, as many people have lists about job possibilities. But while you are culling through people's profiles, if you see that they have lists, check them out. Add people from them that you find interesting. Especially if there are people who have the same interests you do.

2. Follow Fridays

You'll hear about this a lot. Here's what I know. People who participate in Follow Friday are good Twitterers, period. In short, it's people on Twitter recommending a group of people for others to follow. In my case, I recommend people who either have made that week fun for me, or people who I know always have good Tweets that I think others would benefit from. I don't do it every week anymore (depends how busy I am), but it's an important part of Twitter culture. Look to those who do it, and do it yourself. I also do a "Celeb Follow Friday" occasionally. (By and large, celebs on Twitter are a waste of time, but there are those worth following sometimes.)

The people who are good Twitterers are those who are active and engaged. Who thank you for RTing them, for FollowFridaying them, for responding. Good citizens, good netizens, people with good hearts. That's why I love Twitter. To find so many like that all over the world. You have 2000. Choose them wisely.

**************************************************************

Miche's Twitter Etiquette Guide for Celebrities and Others

Many people offer their suggestions at how to do Twitter better, more effectively, in a way that's better for your "brand," whatever. Basically, I've shied away from such stuff. Everyone can do Twitter however works best for them. In general. But recently, I've come across several annoying things that I wanted to bring up so we all could be better Twitter citizens. So, forthwith, the Miche Etiquette for Twitter manifesto:

1. If it's automatic, don't do it.
Any application that "automatically" does anything related to Twitter, avoid like the plague. This includes, but is not limited to, apps that automatically spam people's inboxes, apps that automatically add new followers, and recently most heinous of all, the automatic posting of a new horoscope each day.

a. The horoscope item is particularly annoying because, first off, you may be a Capricorn. I'm not. Therefore, I don't give a crap what is happening with Capricorn today. (Assuming I even care about horoscopes at all.) You are automatically alienating 11/12ths of your audience.

b. If the app puts it in your Twitter stream for you, how do I know that it has any value for you anyway? You can't tell me that each and every day this app drops pearls of wisdom into your Twitter stream.

Let's revisit.

Twitter, when used properly and to best effect, is like when you have something that you just can't wait to tell your best friend, neighbor, sister, significant other. Some witticism or life event or fascinating link. It is REALLY only these things that people want shared. Something that, at minimum, is of value to you.

Now, if you want to get your inbox spammed with your Capricorn horoscope, knock yourself out. But why should I, or anyone else be subjected to it? It's just rude and insensitive, and I will unfollow you for it.

2. Celebrities, get a grip.

Celebrities, God's gift to the world, after all, think we revolve around them, hang on their every word, and breathlessly await each bit of info and concert posting. Well, in short, we don't.

a. Keep your concert calendar to your fan pages, please. Those who really do seek out this information, will seek it there. Twitter is your connection to the world, and the world's connection to you. AS A PERSON. Not as a celebrity.

b. Think again of "info I just have to share with my best friend, etc." Would you breathlessly tell your best friend that you're playing in Tahoe on July 28? And here's where you can buy tickets? Probably not if you want to keep that friend. Think of Twitter as one big friend. PLEASE.

c. Twitter is not the place to try out your latest bits, Conan O'Brien. Comics who don't talk in real words, just drop jokes in their Twitter stream are also unfollowed by me. If I want to see your comedy, I'll just watch you on... wherever it is you are now.

d. You wanna see how real celebrities act on Twitter, don't look to Ashton Kutcher. Check out Rainn Wilson, Alyssa Milano, people who are truly giving back. That's how you do it.

e. Don't use your Twitter stream to answer fan questions. This is also what a website is for. I do understand that those of you (Conan O'Brien) who are only following, oh, say ONE person, think that the stream is your list of responses from fans, um, it's NOT. Try following more people and find out what the Twitter stream really is. All this You, You, You stuff may be how traditional media works. It is definitively not how Twitter works.

f. Maybe there should be a rule that Celebrities Have to do a Follow Friday at least once before they can post anything. That would be useful.

3. Be positive, be uplifting, be helpful.

a. People want to be lifted up by the power of Twitter. They don't want to hear your bitching about your husband, your coworker, your boss. Negativity is on the fast track to an unfollow, trust me. I'm not saying that everyone can be cheery all the time, but really people don't wanna read a bitch session. I recently had someone that I value on my Twitter stream go off because a food truck kept pinging him with messages that he found to be inane. So he let loose about TEN Tweets about how rude and disrespectful this truck was to him. And when people tried to call him on it, his answer was, "if you don't want to hear me bitch, unfollow me." I was way ahead of him, but he got his wish. And I kept the offending truck ON my Twitter stream.

In short, personal vendettas of any kind belong in an email, or a DM. Don't let this loose on the rest of us. Being angry in public only makes you look bad, and this is as true on Twitter as anywhere else.

b. I don't wanna hear how your husband is sleeping around and with whom. These are private conversations. (Remember those?) Remember, anything you post on Twitter can be seen by ANYONE. And remains, long after you're done with it.

c. Helpful, kind words go a long way on Twitter as in life. Use them.

4. Selling still doesn't work for me on Twitter.

a. More and more, especially in the mornings, I see people trying to sell or market this or that: seminars, websites, classes, products. They almost always rate an unfollow from me. Mind you, an occasional website or blog mention is fine. If I look at your profile, and it's all selling, or even 3/4s selling, it's an unfollow.

b. Twitter is a people place. Chat, conversation, getting to know one another. If you wouldn't rush home to tell your sister: Buy this DVD from me!, don't do it in your stream either.

5. If someone bugs you, UNFOLLOW.

a. I regularly purge my Twitter stream of people who've committed any of the above egregious crimes. Life's too short to have angry people venting, or self-important celebs preening, or marketers selling their crap at you.

b. A good part of really enjoying Twitter is getting people on your stream that you truly want to hear from. For some people, this means only following 10 people. For me, it means having a lot, but purging frequently (daily).

c. Whatever you do, ENJOY. Twitter is a blissful experience to me. I don't know how I lived without it.

*************************************************

On the new TV genre staple: Families

What else is there to churn out in TV that's reliable, and constantly has stories? We've done crime procedurals to death. Medicine/doctor shows have had their day. Lawyers? Yawn. Oh, I know! Families!

There's something everyone can relate to. To me, it was annoying enough when Brothers & Sisters brought us too many family members, all yammering and in each other's business, constantly gossiping on the phone with each other. But there were some situations that Brothers & Sisters did well. And it is still on the air, after all.

So let's trot out that formula. 

In catching up with potential Emmy contenders, I've just sat down with two of the talked-about shows: one comedy, one drama; both about families. Maybe I was spoiled because I watched the good one first.

"Modern Family," on ABC, is a genuinely funny comedy about a typical (by today's America standards) family. The gay son, the sex-crazed daughter, the father who marries an insanely hot younger woman (what is it with men in Hollywood constantly presenting this stereotype? This doesn't happen in middle America, you know...). But I digress.

"Modern Family" (though about families, and I admit, the topic of families kinda makes me wanna throw up) has a lot of funny lines and situations. Julie Bowen, way better here than in her last ABC show ("Boston Legal") is warm and you wanna know her story. Jesse Tyler Ferguson, as her brother, is also warm and kind.

The pilot of this show made me want to see more. Ed O'Neill is the penultimate father after his long "Married with Children" run, and they had to work hard to make such a truly sexy man (IRL) look so old and frumpy for this show.

The other family show, the NBC drama "Parenthood," has an absolutely stellar cast. This is why I managed to TiVo nearly every show this season, telling myself it just had to be good. Craig T. Nelson is their father. In fact, nearly everyone in this show you've seen somewhere else on TV. For Monica Potter, it's a good thing you probably don't remember her from "Boston Legal."

For others, it's not so good. After all, how can anyone ever wipe away Nate Fisher or Lorelei Gilmore from our minds when watching Peter Krause and Lauren Graham, respectively? It's really truly hard to see Lauren parenting these two kids, when you know she should be off somewhere taking care of Rory. And we all know Nate's dead.

That said--and for me, it still hangs over every frame of this show so far--it's really great to have them both back in our living rooms, where they belong. And if it can't be Rory, Mae Whitman is feisty and compelling enough to want to watch what she does as Lorelei...AHEM, SARAH's daughter.

But, dear God, the family around the dinner table where everyone is talking at once dynamic is so played out. I'm so over it. It's bad enough we have to listen to that crap in our real lives. I don't wanna see it in my art.

I was just about ready to give up on this show, when Lauren Graham has a date (with the ubiquitous Mike O'Malley). And there, the first moments of poignancy that tug at your heartstrings. Peter Krause has a few of them later in the pilot episode too.

So, my jury is still out on this show. At least the living room scene where the brothers and sisters are yammering at each other played better than any episode of Brothers and Sisters I've ever seen. You felt the natural rapport amongst them, and the love. It was really beautiful.

Although I hate to say it, I'm going to be giving both of these shows more chances. Families. Who knew?

**************************************************************

Fear and Dread Upon Meeting the new Bachelorette

Let me start with my founding principle: media in our current age should be transparent. Founded on honesty, integrity and good values.

OK, I know that mainstream TV is still struggling along in the old way: manipulating the audience, contriving events, making it false and making you believe it.

But it shouldn't. We have higher value to aspire to. And the new reality shows, which came of age about the time the new transparency was going into effect, should know better.

Case in point: the new Bachelorette (starts tonight on ABC).

Let us remember, looking back on what we know with the virtue of hindsight. During the season of the last Bachelor, I, like most Bachelor fanatics, was all wrapped up in the proceedings of what was going on, and like a true gullible fan, I was believing it.

Here's what happened, in case you forgot. All along the way, there was a "battle" between one girl, Ali, and Vienna. Vienna became the woman that the Bachelor, Jake, is now married to. Ali became the new Bachelorette.

Now, a cynical person could say, Hm... at what point exactly did Jake Pavelka realize that he was in love with Vienna and wanted to marry her? I would argue that he knew pretty early on.

But, of course, if you just say, "I love this girl and all the rest of these women can just go home," that doesn't make for much of a season.

And, even though it's a reality show, we know that even on reality shows, people are fighting for camera time. Especially those who are going to be starring in their own show next season. So one also wonders, at what point did the Bachelor producers (who traditionally pick the next Bachelorette from the existing lineup) say: "Oooh, how about Ali?"

I would also argue pretty early on.

Because the way the events were portrayed, nearly two shows into the season, Ali decides she doesn't like Vienna. In nearly every show, she's picking some fight or another with her, pouting and generally being a bitch, saying under her breath at rose ceremonies, "I can't believe he picked her again!" as if Vienna had some heinous boil on her face or something.

All of that, by the by, really made Ali look ungracious (at best) and scheming, manipulative and mean (at worst). THEN, at the end of the season on the "Women Tell All" show, Ali states that she has no hard feelings against Vienna, and she's happy for them. And she's so glad to be starting as the next Bachelorette. Hm.

Oh, but there's more.

Things go along, as they do, on the Bachelor. Jake's picking women, dumping women. Continually he picks Ali. Continually he picks Vienna (amidst howls of protest from women who never ever explain what it is about her they didn't like exactly).

We get down to the final four or five (I think, it was around there). Ali suddenly, in a HUGELY dramatic (taking up a good 20 minutes of our hour of Bachelor time), Ali has a meltdown. She's sobbing, she's pacing, she's telling Jake the bad news: her job has given her an ultimatum. She has to leave The Bachelor and go back to work! But she really wants to stay with Jake. She just doesn't know what to DO!

After much sobbing and kissing and gnashing of teeeth, he finally says: "I can't promise you that I'd be picking you at this point." And she finally says: "I have to go back to work anyway." So she leaves.

Mind you, I'm QUITE skeptical of this device since they used it in the previous season with the contestant Ed, who ended up coming back and marrying Jillian.

In any case, Ali leaves, after a final collapse in the hotel hallway to cry to the camera a bit more. She then returns a few episodes later to tell Jake that she made a mistake and she wants to come back. More drama.

He, to his credit, says, "No, we don't really need you back. We are doing just fine without you." (paraphrasing) Anguished sob into the phone.

Now all of this, in the moment, felt very manipulative and extraneous. And note to Bachelor producers: this "my job is calling me back" malarkey has been PLAYED OUT. Don't even try it again this season.

So, for me, as a loyal Bachelor viewer (even though I know I'm being manipulated), unlike all of the other Bachelorette candidates, whom I liked and really did want to see as the Bachelorette, I really hate the idea of Ali as the new Bachelorette.

She is fake. She is manipulative. She is not genuine. Maybe the others weren't either, but they didn't make such an obvious show of their deception.

Yes, of course, I'm going to be watching. But it'll be with a jaundiced eye this season.

Lost: Back to the beginning, and how I hope it ends

Tomorrow is the final episode of six seasons of Lost. I'm rewatching the first episode that they are airing tonight in preparation. I'm reminded again how pure that first season was, and how far off the track they had fallen at times.

The show has a simple and basic theme, not in the sense of "everyone's stranded on an island," but the opening phrases of Lost had a simple message: No one is what you think they are. And, we are all in this together, so we should just learn to get along.

That was the beauty of it. How, in that first episode, as everyone is struggling up from the plane crash, and you, like they, are just getting to know everyone's names, one makes assumptions. Pretty much every assumption made turns out to be wrong, by the end of the first poetic lyrical season.

And how if you really know someone's story, it can make you cry.

Everyone is basically a good person, or think they are, just trying to get along.

The first season, indeed, was filled with philosophy, and poetry, and mysticism, and beauty and magic. But it was squarely grounded in the human heart. Its key moments, closely examined, were like jewels held up to the light, evoking tears.

Then, somewhere along the way, it fell deeply into the dark side, lapsing into the common television themes of torture and imprisonment, and completely lost the magic and the poetry. Completely lost the "everyone is interconnected" poetry, except as a hokey device.

The path became convoluted. Instead of our happy group of survivors, it became us, and then "The Others." Then the Others had others. Then the Dharma Initiative. Then they Dharma Initiative was guided by someone else, and blah blah. Look to fan sites to see the convoluted hokey path.

All I know is, it started with a simple pure, basic premise that was affecting and deeply felt, and veered very far from that. This final season has evolved into some race for the chosen one, that has depressed me more than explained things to me.

So, I don't know how I want tomorrow's finale to wrap up. The very first death of a character we knew was moving. There have been many more along the way, some for inexplicable reasons (why were those two buried alive with diamonds again?).

Then there was the whole "flashback" concept. Used to brilliant effect in Season One, it showed you the castaway on the island, and their former life. Simple. In Desmond's episode, they introduced a "flash forward" concept. In fact, in the same episode. It flashed BACK and forward. The whole next season involved castaways and their FORWARD stories. The season after that involved them going back to the island, after leaving it. Then, they were jumping all around in time, apparently for some important reason.

Now, this season, they are not only on the island, seemingly in this time, but they are also off of it, in what Lost is oh, so coyly calling a "flash sideways." What would happen IF the plane didn't crash. It's seriously enough to make your head spin.

Even watching every episode regularly can leave you scratching your noggin, going, where are they again? What time is this? Are they forward? or back? or sideways?

I guess the simple, "Are we good? or are we evil?" argument was too facile. They had to throw in a little time travel to keep it interesting?

Well, I'm willing to fall down their rabbit hole one more time to see how it's all wrapped up, finally.

I hope for two things. I hope that it ends on a note of hope and optimism, instead of: "Oh, we are all so screwed," as it seemed to intimate so many times in these six seasons. And it's got to end on an eye. Maybe an eye closing. Maybe Jack's eye. The first shot was his right eye. Maybe the last shot could be his left eye? It's got to be an eye. Then all will be right with the world.

Forward, backward, or sideways.


**************************************************************

Why I Continue to Watch Reality Shows, Or You Can't Fight the Future

When the first season of Survivor (the very first reality show) started, my friends here in Hollywood who write shows for a living loudly proclaimed that reality shows were taking dollars out of the writers' pockets, and therefore, they (insert footstomp here) were not watching them! Surprisingly, many of them still have this attitude (in Survivor's 20th season).

This week, I read an article which stated that MILLIONS of people who lost their jobs in this economic crisis were just simply never getting them back. These two items are related.

Simply put, the world is changing. You have two choices: Change with it, or die. Seriously.

You can say all day long that scripted television is better than reality television (and I would agree with that), but that won't make the networks stop putting cheaper programming in place of it. All writers everywhere can stop watching it, but does that make American Idol less successful? No, it just makes those writers out of touch.

People can argue about how pervasive the Internet is, and how really, they still love to curl up with their favorite newspaper on Sundays, but is that going to stop the iPad from becoming a dominant way to read books or what used to be printed content? No.

So you can stomp your feet and cling to your mainstream media and outdated jobs, or you can evolve and evolve now. The Internet is where it's at, folks, like it or not. People want media that's better, faster and on their phone. Whatever that is, and whoever provides it.

As much as big media hates this reality, people can find just as much enjoyment (you heard me, I said JUST as much) from a YouTube video of a cat playing with yarn, or a podcast created in someone's garage, as with whatever the Big Media is pumping at us currently.

Face it, principled writers: Dancing with the Stars is glitzy and glamourous and fun to watch. Survivor has some of the best location shooting and underwater photography on television. The Amazing Race travels all over the world, so you see cultures you'd never otherwise see. Every hugely popular reality show has good points.

This is our world now. Computerized, mechanized, at your fingertips 24/7. That is our entertainment. Those are our jobs. Come and get 'em. Or at least, quit your bitching about it. It's not going away.


***********************************************************************

Open Letter to Craig Ferguson

Dear Mr. Ferguson:

I'm just now settling into your landmark episode with Stephen Fry. The one with no audience, and no other guests. I've listened to your monologue and I want to comment a bit.

I remember in the glory days of talk shows, the excitement of watching The Mike Douglas Show, with his round panel of guests. Or how my parents used to make Johnny Carson their Must See TV. And Tom Snyder, whom you mentioned, always seemed to be very interesting, with interesting guests.

Somehow the art of the talk show, the late night variety anyway, has devolved into some kind of bizarre game show schtick. Funny bits that used to be on the "variety" shows seem to dominate. The "talking" is mostly pre-rehearsed and for someone selling something. It's a bit too formulaic and predictable.

For the record, I hated Craig Kilbourn, and his sophomoric take on the talk show. I never ever watched his show.

But I started watching yours almost immediately. I was, and have continued to be, enchanted by the cheeky monkeys and the puppets and the brazen honesty that you bring to this late-night landscape. I was well into the pace of watching you with pleasure every night when that upstart Fallon came on the scene. And, I have to admit, I was swayed at first into watching him. He seemed to be very astute with the Mac and iPhone and the tech-savvy crowd, of which I am a part.

Then, he branched off into comedy set pieces and too many lame audience games and REALLY bad musical guests, so I've fallen off watching him. Never really liked Leno much. It feels like his time is past (a long time ago), and after the shabby way that NBC treated Conan (another flavor that I only perused occasionally), I can't watch Leno ever again.

But, to me, it always seems like you're struggling. The struggle seems to be what you know in your heart to be a good show, versus what the standard format of a late night show is, or what CBS censors tell you, or whatever. The times when you've hit the show out of the park is when you follow your heart and do what you want to do with it.

I, for one, am glad that you got away from the lame comedy skits and "remotes" from somewhere they are not. The new reality (at least the one I know on the Web) is about honesty and authenticity, and that seems like somewhere you could really excel.

What you have over Fallon, well aside from your dashing good looks and big one, is the art of the urbane and literate. I was (and continue to be) thrilled when you put in the surrealist Dali as a regular bit. It was such a wonderful innovative bit of television, and one area that no one else really covers.

The best interviews you do are with guests who interest you. But with all the hoo-ha that is also going on, you have time to ask about three questions before you have to get to the next guest or next musical act or next signoff. I personally would much rather you have a guest for an entire show, and do whatever you want with them.

Mind you, not every guest is as interesting as Stephen Fry. But there have been many, many times in the past where I've really wished you could talk to someone longer.

Even the people who do have "talking" shows: Larry King, or Joy Behar (as you mentioned), or Charlie Rose, still seem like they are constrained to a format, all official and strained. You and your guests have always felt like you are sitting in your living room, chatting. That's awesome.

In fact, in my dream world of the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, I would LOVE to have no warm-up comedian, no audience even. Just you and the guest. You, released from that crazy constraint of suit and tie, dressed in shirt and jeans, or whatever you're comfortable in, kicking back in a big leather armchair.

Maybe you could have one day a week with the boring guests and the musical acts and the audience.

But what a treasure a regular show with no audience, no schtick, no nothing but talking would be.

Most of all though, I am a loyal audience member of yours. I know others who feel the same way. I think everyone would say: Follow your dreams for your own show. Do it before you get bored. Break new ground. Let Tom Snyder live again. Or, even better, let YOU live with your passion.

Be honest and real and unscripted. (Don't even waste the damn cards.) People know the difference between pre-arranged schtick and actual talking.

It is a new world. Late night television needs to keep up. NBC is a mess. Letterman is happy with his format. Be happy with yours, and it will make us happy. Even if that means changing it completely.

Whatever that means to you, we'll keep up and we'll enjoy it. (Love the Spanish word of the day, btw.) Engage our minds with literacy. Delve into scientists and inventors and whoever it is that makes you interested, not just the latest actor or actress to plug their movies. More authors! Whoever. Whatever nobodies you want to interview. Be honest, be real, we'll follow. Trust your instincts. Trust your audience. We are there for you.

Oh, and I am glad that you finally got on Twitter. Love ya!

*********************************************************************

Big Time Streamy FAIL

Someone said to me recently that wanting to be in someone's web series is the new "can I show you my script?" in Los Angeles. Everyone and their brother has a web series, similar to how everyone used to shop their scripts around town. The difference being, mostly, that web series ARE getting made. We can make them. It's faster and cheaper. You don't have to rely on monolithic corporations to give you the greenlight. And all of that is wonderful.

And while podcasting and the web series craze started around the same time, it's the web series (another word for video podcast, or vlog, or vlodcast, or video series, or podcast with video) that has really taken off. So much so that while the audio podcasts seem to have been left in the dust, now video podcasts/web series have their own awards show: the Streamys.

That's great. I'm happy for them. And, truthfully, the nominees do seem to have talent and deserve to be there. There are many of my favorites which were also left out, but I suppose that's true of any awards show.

Strangely, for an awards show in its second year, it's already branched off part of the awards, the tech version, to another day. Those were earlier this week. Tonight, we had the Streamys, main event.

Boy was it exciting! The website boasted a red carpet at 4 pm, the awards themselves at 5:30, just like the Academy Awards! Don't know about anyone else, but when I tuned in at 5 pm, all I saw was a black screen (on the Web, where it all was due to broadcast live).

No matter. Who cares about red carpet ho-has anyway? The awards are what matter!

So we wait. Until 5:30 pm PST, popcorn in hand, for the awards show that celebrates our peers, the best of the best on the Web.

What do we get for our trouble? Far too many lewd, crude and obnoxious jokes for my taste. Two streakers! (which actually did liven things up a bit). Nearly naked people grabbing at celebrities, although that was just David Faustino, who used to be a celebrity, didn't he? Yeah. The Streamys was like that.

In fact, that moment, when hot sweaty bad-joke-spewing David Faustino tried to grab Felicia Day, a suffragette for actresses on the Internet if there ever was one, that moment really sums up the Streamys. Hot sweaty naked twerps trying to be funny disrupting the rest of us from getting on with the business we are developing here.

The Streamys, in short, didn't take themselves seriously, while the web series creators, who know better, take themselves very seriously. Felicia Day, who dedicated her award to geek girls everywhere (like me!), really represents the best of the web series phenomenon. She wasn't getting cast (for those who don't know the story) in traditional media, so she worked on her own to develop The Guild, which became a huge Internet phenomenon.

The Guild now has its own DVDs, is in its third season, and has it's own Twitter following, Knights of the Guild. It's brilliant.

I don't know who puts the Streamys together, who votes on them, who selects the nominees. I do know a few things about the awards show broadcast, though: it was quite possibly the worst award show I've ever seen (and I've seen MANY). It was only broadcast over the Internet, and someone had left a mic on, in addition to the one monitoring the action onstage. So throughout the THREE HOURS AND TEN MINUTES that this thing droned on, the entire time, we could hear some twerps near this other open mic, chatting, eating food, conversing with someone nearby. It was beyond irritating.

In addition to that major faux pas, tech things kept going wrong. Footage was supposed to run that didn't run, or the wrong footage ran, or the whole screen went dark. Nearly everything you could imagine going wrong, did. Lame skits seemed to run on for days. So much so that you nearly forgot you were here to watch some awards being handed out. I was arguing with someone online about whether or not the show even HAD a director. If so, PLEASE fire that person, and never let them direct another award show.

Dreadful. No pacing, no flavor.

There were moments, deep into the show, when real celebrities took over and gave the show something worth watching. Kevin Pollak, honored for his show, Kevin Pollak's Chat Show (which I think I'm going to go catch up on once I finish writing this), went on a rant as he was presenting "Best Guest Star in a Web Series." "Go produce your own web series! Best Guest Star?" It was wonderful and funny. The nominees, though, were people like Tony Hale and Nathan Fillion, no shabby acting talent here.

Chris Hardwick in what may or may not have been scripted, pulled out a mic of his own (better sound) and ranted about the creators of web series. Also brilliant.

In one of my favorite moments, the super talented (last seen in Dollhouse) Fran Kranz walked onstage. Then they ruined it by having a stupid bit where he awkwardly got a pie in the face. Yawn.

It was worse than watching awards at your junior high. Grow up, people. Realize this is our industry. Treat it like the business it is. Respect yourself AND your audience. Isn't that what podcasting/video blogging/web series is all about? I was embarrassed and ashamed of most of these people.

One of the highlights for many other people (though I was so zoned and bored by that point, I could hardly care) was when Auto Tune the News came on, and auto-tuned film clips. When they later beat Rocketboom in their category, all seemed right with the world.

The other award winners were uneventful to me. If you care, I'm sure www.streamys.org has the results. Just don't watch any of the awards show. You'll thank me later.


***********************************************************************

Be Interesting. Be Real.

When confronted by Twitter for the first time, many newbies freeze. What do I write?

One of my favorite Twitter users, @unmarketing, recently blogged about when to blog and when not to (http://www.un-marketing.com/blog/2010/04/09/frequently-futile-how-often-should-you-blog/).

Now that we've all become content creators (whether we like this realiity or not), it's become imperative that you understand the answers to these questions.

For so long, we sat by passively as others churned their content at us. I remember in the early days of the Internet, big media companies and advertisers scoffed at the prospect of people actually wanting to create their own content, instead of having it done for them. Many of them have since gone out of business.

I mean, really, what could we nobodies have to say that would rival the relevance of Jon and Kate Plus Eight, or the latest mistress out of the woodwork from Tiger Woods? Yeah. Pretty much ANYTHING you have to say is more interesting to me that that crap. I know I'm not alone in believing this.

There are a million things that happen in each person's day. (And yes, some people choose to blog/Twitter about all of them. I don't recommend this.) The color, the flavor, the tenor of your day, though, is specific to you and your perception of it. And that's what I want to hear about.

FAR too many blogs and Twitter posts hover around the "how do we make money from this crap?" tangent. They aim their posts at marketing something to you. I avoid these posts/blogs like the plague. I care about them as little as I care about Tiger Woods.

Realize that we are in a distinctly different time now. Our mission, all of us, is to take what is valuable from our lives and broadcast that to others. Podcast it, blog it, Tweet it, LiveStream it, however you've gotta do it, just do it. But consider editing a bit. Just because the world is now your blank slate, doesn't mean that we are all hungering for each salivating morsel of it.

Play by plays of each sandwich you make probably can take a blog pass. But that encounter you had with the grocer that made your day? THAT I want to hear about.

In short, what is important to you? should be the top Twitter question. If you retweet others (and you should), it should be something that moves you. If you #FollowFriday others (and you should), it should be people whose posts really make your week better. That is how we show our interconnectedness. (If I value you, and you value someone else, perhaps I might get something out of their Tweets too?)

Those who haven't yet jumped on the Twitter bandwagon might not understand this. Or those, like the collosal jerkoff Conan O'Brien, who made such a big show about following one person (without realizing all it said was, to a mass audience: I don't understand Twitter at all.) It's not about one to one anymore, or even one to many. It's even more than many to many. It's like we are all part of a giant rushing stream, and we are compelled to contribute our important part.

Sure, if you want, you can get all uppity and protect your Tweets (also not understanding Twitter), but it's all about the discourse now. Shy folks, private souls need not participate.

We are twisting and molding and shaping our future right now. From the hands of those who would shovel crap down our throats. We can make it whatever we want. But to do that, we have to distinctly and clearly voice what is important to us.

Implicit within that is also one of the rallying cries of the new age. We, the imperfect, are taking over this world from those who would force perfection on us. So we have podcasts using shitty mics, and blogs with typos and Tweets that are typed when we are drunk. Yep. We do that, and it's ok. In fact, it's great. Imperfection is what is valued now.

Adam Curry talks about the new authenticity. Being real and honest and true is the currency of today. Mainstream media has forgotten what truth is all about. We need to remind them. Constantly.

Unmarketing was talking about some people's need for a "blog schedule" (every day, or every week, or every Friday). He was at SXSW. He wants to post whenever the spirit moves him. And you know what? That's ok. In fact, that is how it works today. You share something when you have something to share. I'll still be paying attention to you, once it's there.

I don't demand perfection from you, and I hope you don't demand it from me. Let's just get real together, shall we? Cause we all can make the world a better place that way.

This Year's Oscarcast Makes History

Every year they try it. Most years, they fail. This year, they failed (this hot new producer duo of Shankman and Mechanic), but produced some good moments.

It's not easy trying to juggle many potentially time-consuming things. How to make an Oscarcast fit within three hours? Here's what they tried: telling all nominees that speeches had to be 45 seconds long. That they would have a chance to thank every last person with the webcam that was backstage. Into this webcam, they could ramble and thank every last teacher they've ever had. At least, that was the working theory.

They also decided, early on, to cut the traditional Best Song performance. After all, Peter Gabriel had been angered the previous year when they asked him to perform only 45 seconds of his nominated song. (Can you blame him?) This year, they got rid of it altogether.

However, in some quarters, Best Song nominees and rambling incoherent acceptance speeches are why we watch the Oscars. So, what else you got, new golden boy directors?

Well, their idea seemed to be to court the youth vote. Get the youngsters to watch the Oscars by having Miley Cyrus and the kids from Twilight present. (A colossally bad idea, as it turned out.)

Then there were the hosts. Plural. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin had been enlisted this year. As Oscar hosts go, they weren't quite Letterman bad, and not nearly Jackman good. The opening banter that reeked of "Oprah-Uma"ville, was pained and awkward. Their own jabs at each other were stagey and mostly unfunny. Although the concept of them descending from the ceiling (wasn't this stolen from the MTV awards?) mostly worked well.

There were other ouch moments. Neil Patrick Harris (who should've been hosting) appeared in an opening dance number that seemed apropos of nothing. Although the fan dancers were... um, colorful.

Their Snow White moment came when they chose to honor film icon John Hughes (who passed last year) with a film montage. And several of his featured actors onstage, each saying a few words (some of which had just been in the montage). Judd Nelson looked scary sick. Macauley Culkin has seen better days. We get it. John Hughes created some great, memorable movies. We miss him. But the endless homage to him was out of place.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, apparently Lauren Bacall and Roger Corman had been given honorary Oscars. All they got was a smile and a wave. Oh, and a standing ovation.

There was also a horror movie montage, apropos of nothing, except to chastize the Academy for not choosing more horror films. (Um, ok...) Inexplicably, it wasn't at all tied in to Roger Corman's award.

Although there were no Best Song performances, they did grace us with an interpretive dance segment to the Best Score nominees. Draw your own conclusions, but I think this is the moment most people chose to go to the bathroom or refill on snacks.

Those were the travesties, now let's talk about what they did right.

Camerawork was stellar (other than one too many closeup on George Clooney). The stagecraft was state-of-the-art. Lights and stage worked well, and proved interesting. And best of all, when the winners wanted to talk for a bit, they let them. They were only pushed off with music if their speech had gotten boring. So Jeff Bridges was able to thank those he wanted and needed to thank, and Lloyd Bridges is smiling down in gratitude.

The best Oscar moment for me this year came when Barbra Streisand came out to announce Best Director. She herself had memorably been nominated once. Up to that moment, no woman had ever won before. No African-American had ever won before. It was a proud, tearful moment when, as she opened the envelope, she paused and said, "It's finally time. Kathryn Bigelow. Hurt Locker." It was the most powerful moment of the evening.

Oh yeah, The Hurt Locker won Best Picture, and six of its nine nominations. Avatar won three. Precious, Up and Crazy Heart all took two. Inglorious Basterds, The Young Victoria, Star Trek and the Blind Side all took one.

That was another powerful moment. All awards season long, statues had alternated between Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock. On this night, it was Ms. Bullock's name that was finally called. She offered her Oscar up to her mother, and cried in the process. It was beautiful.

Another really moving choice from previous years that thankfully they kept was the tradition of actors commenting on the nominees. They did this for both Best Actor and Best Actress. It was joyous to see each nominee tear up as the person onstage spoke directly to them. And that felt like a win for everyone.

This year's Oscarcast? Nearly three and a half hours. Maybe next year, they'll do it better.

On the continued fakeness of The Bachelor

There are certain reality shows I like and continue to watch, mostly Survivor and The Bachelor. I like them because they provide what really only podcasts provide in the media landscape: truth.

From the first moment when Sue Hawk gave the blistering speech to Richard Hatch on the first season of Survivor ten years ago, TV was changed forever. And hopefully, those who make TV realized that while scripted shows are wonderful, it is the scent of the real that people really hunger for.

Some shows: Survivor, The Amazing Race and sometimes The Bachelor, seem to adhere to "let's leave it real" as their esthetic. The problem with these shows, and adding "writers" to them, is that then you are manipulating reality, diluting what was already pure. I can't speak for anyone else, but that makes me not want to watch them anymore.

Last season, The Bachelorette had a particularly heinous twist (obviously some producer came from The Amazing Race or some similar show) where the bachelors were running obstacle courses and crap to get to the one woman to date. It was absolutely horrible. I hope they never repeat it. It was a big misstep.

Another (and yes, we have a trend now) is manipulating the ending. And I'm so pissed off about it, I have to write about it.

Let's revisit, shall we? In that very same Bachelorette edition, there was a guy named Ed that we didn't see very much of. Certainly didn't see Gillian (the Bachelorette) falling for him in any way whatsoever. There was big drama when suddenly he was "called back" by his work. In other words, it was his job or his new girl (potentially).

Even then, I thought: come on now. You know ABC vets these people six ways from Sunday, and they have to sign papers which state: during the next (six or eight) weeks, I have enough free time to pursue this thing till the end. Certainly. It was so in EVERY PREVIOUS Bachelor/Bachelorette version.

But apparently some (obviously male) producer decided that wasn't dramatic enough. We couldn't just see Gillian falling in love with Ed (which, btw, we didn't). We had to have this big reveal. He leaves. Shocker! He can't live without her, he comes back. She takes him back. (Which comes from out of nowhere.) And another contestant whom we had seen her falling in love with, Reid, gets bounced. And HE comes back, heart in hand, to actually propose. But no, unbeknownst to us, she had somewhere along the way (not in the edited and shown version of the show) fallen in love with this Ed guy.

Dear God, put a woman on this thing!

What we want to see (speaking for the women out there) is some poor schmuck (male or female) gradually falling more in love with someone among the candidates. So that at the end, when they propose, we can all go: "Awwww" because that's how it's supposed to be. That is what fell into place right before our eyes. We are lucky to have seen it. They are happy to have it. Swoon.

Like Tricia and Ryan. Though we didn't really understand it, it was obvious she liked him. That was beautiful. (And they are still married.) Is that so hard to put together? Come on, producers!

No, apparently they like this "finalist towards the end suddenly gets called away by his/her job, then comes back because she/he is too in love." Yawn. I know it's a scripted manipulation. You know how I know? Oh, other than they did it frikkin LAST SEASON TOO? I'm currently watching The Bachelor episode where he is frolicking with his chosen final three. AND THEY CUT TO ALI, the girl who had the job angst on the last episode, in her apartment. CUT TO HER. Being all angsty. "I can't stop thinking about Jake." Make me throw up.

Oh, lemme guess. She comes back, disrupts the final rose ceremony and he bounces someone else to keep her. Maybe he'll end up marrying her, like Gillian did with Ed last season.

For me, from this moment on, this is no longer fun. Any more than being manipulated in real life is fun. No thanks, Bachelor. I hate this.

On the Spirituality of Giving

This post is a response to this blog/podcast post:

http://sethsimonds.com/do-you-give-to-beggars/#comment-3922

Thank you for bringing this up, Seth. I wanted to respond at length.

There was a time in my life when I scorned "beggars" as I passed them on the street. Couldn't wait to get as far away from them as fast as I possibly could, hoping that no particle of them would actually come in contact with my person. I, like many, judged these people, muttering inside about their possible alcoholism or other addictive problems that I didn't want to contribute to. And boy, wasn't I superior by just moving on?

Since those times, however, my spiritual practice has evolved quite a bit.

So, to answer your question, my response is: YES. When someone asks, I give.

But let's not look at this by the prism of money. Let us instead look at it from a more spiritual perspective. By passing that homeless person, I was essentially putting my spiritual money in the bank of the cynical and the jaded. The judging and the negative. The superior and the holier than thou.

By GIVING, it opens everything up. It opens ME up. It opens up the person asking. It makes everything right with the universe. It's the right thing to do. It is, then, putting my spiritual money in the bank of the "we are all in this together." The "we only care for each other" on this planet mindset.

Because here's the thing. It's tough to ask someone for money, or for anything. It's a blow to your pride, usually. And if you're in the position where you have to ask, you probably need it. So I no longer judge what they are going to be spending it on. Doesn't matter in the scheme of things. If they are asking, and I'm able to, I give.

Now, mind you, I wouldn't wanna be Oprah, who probably has all kinds of people asking her for all kinds of things. She probably has a team of folks fielding requests.

But my general spiritual principle is that if some person crosses my path, in whatever way: on the street, online, at a social event, whereever, and they ask me for something I'm able to give, I have to give. And usually, I give them exactly what they ask for. If they ask for 50 cents, that's what I give them. If they ask for $20, and I have it, I'll give it. If they are asking for my time, or a service I can provide, I give it.

Bragging about giving isn't why I'm writing this, though. I think it's a really fundamental mindset change that we all need to go through that is being discussed here. So much of the world is a cynical, mistrusting mess. Every single time each one of us chooses to give instead of walk away, I believe the world changes for the better.

We have spent many years being bitter and cynical and mistrusting. Let's all start building back up that reservoir of trust and love and community that this world needs again. What is $5, really, when you think of the spiritual foundation you are actually building with that (seemingly inconsequential) action? As the ad says; Priceless.

For me, the more I give, the more I feel connected to my community and to the world at large. And the more material wealth I attain, the more essential it is to give large parts of it away. I do believe with that one simple gesure, the flow begins. Money flows, spirit flows, love flows.

Maybe you were only seeing the joy in the man's face. For me, that is where my joy lives too. Let me give, freely, without any thought of reciprocation. That opens up great gushers of kindness inside me.

So many people are hurting right now, barely able to get by. Yes. If they ask you for it, GIVE. It's the right thing to do. Always.

Ten Ways to Be Happy in 2010

Someone sparked this idea on Twitter (thank you, @gracekboyle!), and it inspired me to write a blog post about it.

1. BE GRATEFUL

This is really the core of any happiness that I've found. Whatever you have: not enough, enough, too much, way too much, be grateful for every last stitch of it. In my experience, if you can be grateful in a day, you're well on your way to happy already.

2. BE GLAD YOU HAVE A JOB.

You're one of those people whose entire department got laid off, and you're stuck doing five people's jobs? Be glad you have a job. Think of ways you've always wanted to do things, and now that no one's there you can implement them.

3. BE GLAD FOR ALL THE FREE TIME.

If you're on the other end of that spectrum, and are feeling like you've been unemployed for too long, relish in all the free time that you have after being a hard-working slob for too many years. You can finally read those books you've set aside. Get some gardening in. Tackle that home improvement project that your wife/husband bugs you about. The world is your oyster, baby. It just, ahem, doesn't have a job in it at the moment.

4. GO WILD WITH SELF-IMPROVEMENT

OK, maybe you're like me and can just do one thing. So pick one thing and start it this year: yoga, meditation, long walks in the park, whatever. Put it in your day planner. Make it happen. You'll feel better, I swear.

5. TURN OFF

At least an hour a week, turn off something that's distracting your attention: computer games, the evening news, Guitar Hero, afternoon soaps, whatever it is that's keeping you from becoming a better self. Turn it off. Keep it off. Commit to an hour. See how it feels. Go for longer.

6. TUNE IN

Use that time to get intimate with yourself. For women, a long bubble bath usually works. Or a massage. Contemplating your chakras in meditation. Working out. Whatever it is that you do just for yourself. Do it.

7. LET THE WORLD FLY AWAY

Too many of us get bogged down in the judgments of others, trying to conform to society's standards. Practice this well, and you'll be much closer to that elusive happiness thing. Work consciously (daily if you have to) on self-acceptance. We are all at the ready with shame about those five extra pounds, or that bad skin, or those knock knees: whatever it is you really dislike about yourself. Look in the mirror and say (out loud is better): I LOVE MYSELF EXACTLY AS I AM. Mean it. Live it.

8. MAKE TIME FOR FRIENDS

Yes, I know. Twitter is addicting. Internet porn is compelling. Put it down and spend a lunch with a friend you haven't seen for awhile. Or make some popcorn and let someone else share that TV you are so proud of. Reaching out to a friend will go a long way to paving your road with happiness.

9. SLEEP MORE

Most Americans aren't getting enough sleep. Sleep restores and refreshes your natural body clock. Get more of it.

10. PICK ONE DIET ITEM

Everyone resolves to quit every heinous thing in their diet, gets overwhelmed and gives up. How about this. Pick ONE thing that is doing your body harm and skip it for a week. (Caffeine, sugar, fast food, sodas are just a few suggestions.) Notice how much better you feel without said item in your body. See if you can do it again the following week. Test, rinse, repeat.

Let me know how it goes.

Radio Is Dead: Halloran No Longer On Air

2010 begins with sad radio news. Shakeups at morning shows all across the country, and radio legend Mike Halloran no longer on air at San Diego's 94.9 (where he had been for seven years). It is a sad and sorry day for terrestrial radio. If it wasn't dead before, it surely is now.

But what of the future? Wither radio?

Here's what I really wish: that these amazing radio talents (Halloran, Sovel, TK, Kurt St. Thomas, Angie C., the FNX crew, etc.) that are no longer appreciated by terrestrial as we know it, just take the bull by the horns and forge a REAL radio in the Internet space.

Suck it up about the salaries (yep, you're gonna make less initially), and just do Internet radio we can be passionate about. The money may not be there now, but it will be.

Do radio the way you always wanted to. Not crap dictated to you by consultants, where playlists rule the day; but music that makes you feel alive, music you are inspired by.

Like terrestrial Indie 103.1 was, but even freer and moreso. There has not YET been a station like that online. One with personalities that we love to listen to, and hear commentary from; one that is REALLY about the music, with a vast lack of bullshit.

Even Indie 103.1 dot com is too playlist oriented (for reasons that boggle my mind). Give us people talking, and music we love. How hard is that? Why hasn't anyone done this yet?

Like how Huffington Post reinvented newspapers for the web, and now it's the gold standard. We need that for radio on the Web. And boy, would I love Halloran to be masterminding something like that. Or the ones we loved at Indie. Or the ones we loved at FNX. Or all of the above.

Because otherwise, radio is going to die. I'm a hardcore radio addict, and I could honestly never listen to radio again, now that most of the folks from Indie and Halloran are no longer on air. What is the point?

Breaking bands? I get my new music online, in any of various sources.

The bands fan pages on MySpace or their own websites are more reliable sources of new music anyway, and you can interact with the bands you love there. All of that used to be the bastion of radio. No more.

What I wanted from my radio station was this: music I could just turn on, and listen to. Whatever was played. Listen because I enjoyed what the jocks had to say, because I liked the music, because interviews and banter was informative. I would still do that if there was a viable alternative. But, sadly, there isn't.

GIVE US ONE, OH GREAT RADIO GODS. Forge a real radio station on the Internet. One that everyone hears about and has to listen to. One that isn't constrained by ratings malarky. Or corporation dictatorship. One that bands love and come to (like they did to Indie 103). One that truly remembers and honors the music that matters.

Really? Is this so hard?

On Humility, or an Open Letter to Mo'Nique

Dear Mo'Nique:

I heard about your recent refusal to appear at all these award shows coming up, even though you are nominated.

http://goldderby.latimes.com/

You stomp and scream and cry, demanding that you didn't get paid enough for the film, and if you have to traipse to all these things, you wanna get paid for it. And you know, it's an understandable request.

But let me just school you for a minute in the way things work in Hollywood, since you don't really seem to get it. And, in the spirit of your character in Precious (and no, I'm not adding the damn pretentious title after it), let me be straight-up and honest about it. Brutally honest.

Here's what it is. You may think, as an actress, that the goal is the work, to get a deeply moving role, blah blah. That may be true. However, the reality is also that in the overall scheme of things, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING, that you do: no talk show, no other role, no stage work, no nothing will help your career and image in the industry as much as winning an Academy Award.

This should be obvious, apparently it isn't to you.

Every time after that, in every ad, every magazine article, every everything, it's going to say: Oscar-winning actress Mo'Nique in big, bold letters. Just let that sink into your brain for awhile.

Because here's the thing. Here's the reason I'm writing this letter to you. THAT IS within your grasp. Right now, with this role in Precious, you nearly have the gold plate inscribed. I promise you.

BUT to get from here to there, there are a lot of steps along the way. And tantrumy diva behaviour might hold up, even for this role. Might. Right now, from where I stand, it looks like you're on a crash course to self-destruction.

So maybe you don't really get the Hollywood scene. Trust me with this too, this is the closest you are ever gonna get to this gold. People have a once-in-a-lifetime shot at this usually, and this is yours. So listen well.

You may've previously played the actress game, which involves auditioning, and getting roles, and doing those roles. Etc. This awards-show circuit is a whole other side of the Hollywood machinery.

Here is how it is properly played, for those skilled and in the know. And you can choose to ignore this advice, but trust me, sister, this right now is your shot. I'm saving you years of learning.

With a powerhouse role like this, the award accolades start coming in early. You get nominated at everything from the New York Critics Circle to the Golden Globes, if you're lucky. The BAFTAs. The LA Critics. And the more of these you choose to go to, and smile and nod, and accept your award, the more a part of the industry you will appear. Those IN the industry will say to themselves, she's not a crazy diva actress. She's a respected actress and we want to give her an Oscar for that, because she is playing our game. And further down the line, they will HIRE you because they remember that you were the one winning all the awards.

All those uphill battles you've been fighting as an actress go away because you become a known quantity in their minds. Now, you may jump up and down, screaming about what a great actress you already are, and while that may be true, Terrence Howard had it exactly right. You may have won over your friends, family and fans. Those aren't the people who get you JOBS.

Right now, just the bad press you have already have about this matter may have derailed any respect you might've had in the industry (talk show be damned; this fiasco is the PR version of Britney shaving her head). It may just be too late. I don't think so. I think you still have time to salvage it, if you suck it up and start acting with some humility going forward.

Here's what you have to do, immediately, if not sooner. Get your publicist all over the Internet putting out this fire. Saying instead, Oh no, Mo'Nique would love to appear at your awards event. Go there, say not one word about money, smile, nod, pick up your award. Rinse, repeat. Over and over. Like it's one of those magic walkways they have at airports. The momentum in place will just push you through it.

And if you keep doing it, I promise you, there is an Oscar at the other end. Did you know that an actress's fee goes up significantly if she has won an Oscar? And the FIRST role you do after winning an Oscar you can pretty much cherry pick? That is there waiting for you.

Having lots of money may be your goal. It may be your only goal. You may not care about "the art." You may not care about the respect of your peers. But if you do, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP right now, and do this. Without complaint. Without requests for additional payment. The payment comes in the roles you get later. And the doors that will be opened for you. When in the future, it's between you and another actress for a role, you'll ALWAYS have the "well, she won an Oscar" card to play.

You seem like a smart woman, Mo'Nique. Fix this PR travesty right now. Do the awards circuit. And if, for whatever reason, you choose not to, I sure hope that Academy voters remember Samantha Morton's name as an alternative. At least SHE gets it.

CONSTANCE AMIOT Rendezvous de novembre

Pourquoi faut-il que l’on fasse des promesses
Je te jure que le temps les renverse
Il emporte avec lui les plus belles images
Dévalise les saisons comme on tourne les pages

J’aimerais récolter les plus belles histoires
En plaquant des accords sur le manche de ma guitare
Mais le temps qui de temps en temps oui le temps qui brille
Comme une étoile

Pourquoi traduire les mots les plus tendres
Toucher du bois quand on manque de bol
Pour adoucir le mois de novembre
Les volets qui claquent et les détails qui clochent

Et le temps qui de temps en temps oui le temps qui brille
Comme une étoile

J’aimerais emprunter le chemin des rêveurs
Ajuster mes adieux à des « au revoir »
A bientôt rendez-vous aux couleurs de l’automne
Essayons d’être heureux du moins jusqu’à ce soir

Mais le temps qui de temps en temps oui le temps qui brille
Comme une étoile
Le temps qui de temps en temps, le temps qui brille
Oui le temps qui de temps en temps, oui le temps qui brille (x3)

Les jours s’abritent dans les manteaux d’hiver
Et dispersent dans le vent, tout ce qui dure
Pourquoi faut-il que l’on fasse des promesses
Ceux qui s’endorment comme des toiles accrochées sur les murs

MICHELLE'S TRANSLATION (one found online is inaccurate)

NOVEMBER RENDEZVOUS
Why is it that we make promises ?
I swear that time reverses itself
It carries with it the most beautiful images
Robs the seasons as you turn the pages

I would like to gather the best stories
By plating agreements on the neck of my guitar
But time, from time to time, yes time that shines
Like a star

Why translate the most tender words?
Touch wood when you miss the bowl
To soften the month of November
The shutters banging and details that are wrong

And time, from time to time, yes time that shines
Like a star

I would like to borrow the path of dreamers
Adjust my farewells to a "goodbye"
Soon return to the colors of autumn
Try to be happy at least until tonight

But time, from time to time, yes time that shines
Like a star
Time, from time to time, yes time that shines
Yes, time, from time to time, yes time that shines (x3)

The days shelter themselves in the coats of winter
And disperse in the wind all that lasts
Why is it that we make promises
To those who sleep like fabrics hung on walls ?

Are We Addicted To Giving Our Own Opinions

Are We Addicted To Giving Our Own Opinions

Posted using ShareThis

Google Messes Things Up Good

Here is the original link which prompted this story:

http://www.musicpowernetwork.com/MusicResources/GoogleMusic/tabid/111/Default.aspx

I don't know if you go searching through music lyrics the way I do (I use Google to search a music lyric at least every day, and usually multiple times in a day). What is it I prefer to get in my search? First, a lyric that has the right words, that's key.

But after that, all I want to do is go there, copy the lyric and post it in whatever it is I'm working on. Simple cut and paste. I don't sell it or repurpose it or do anything nefarious with it.

Increasingly (I've been doing this for at least five years now with regularlity), I find websites that will show you the lyrics, but they have something blocking the text so that you can't copy it (ie, it's useless to me). metrolyrics.com is one example. I used them all the time before. Now they are one of my last choices. So that was annoying.

Then, they increasingly started, more and more putting ads on the pages. Also annoying, but you could ignore them. Until the ads started having music videos in them, which started playing when you opened the page. Beyond annoying.

I want a simple experience: lyrics, copy, paste, done. No ads, no frills, no frou-frou nonsense. Don't want links to an artist's page (though if that helps me get truer lyrics, that's great). But I'm not looking to buy their music. I have other venues for that if I want to do that. All I want is bloody lyrics. That's all.

And I have noticed what this article talks about. First, it was things like last dot fm and Rhapsody creeping in. Sure you might be able to eventually get to the lyrics, but you have to subscribe and listen to the record first. Um, no.

There already were sites that I avoided because they were full of popups and did crazy things to my browser, even crashing it. I would learn to go only to the reliable sites (lyricstime dot com and sing365 are still pretty good) for that purpose. But increasingly, the wholle first page or even couple pages of searches are full of CRAP. Amazon and other music sites. All I want is LYRICS.

Do you get this people? If I don't get that, I go somewhere else for it. I don't wade through ads, or buy stuff just cause it's there. I go somewhere where my experience is hassle-free. Google really needs to learn this. And ESPECIALLY if none of the monies made here are going to the artist anyway. Can someone just do a lyrics site that doesn't bombard you with crap?

Top 10 Best Picture predictions for Oscar

BEST PICTURE

1. The Messenger

2. Up

3. Capitalism, A Love Story

4. An Education

5. The Hurt Locker

6. Bright Star

7. Where the Wild Things Are

8. Julie & Julia

9. Coco Before Chanel

10. The Damned United

New Noise conference overview

October 8-10, 2009

The first annual New Noise conference took place in lovely Santa Barbara this past week (October 8-10). I was lucky enough to win all-access passes (thank you, Twitter and @lalawag!) so I went to everything on the schedule that I could squeeze in. This meant conferences by day, lots and lots of bands by night.

The wondrous Michael Franti and Spearhead kicked off the festivities on Thursday night, but I didn't arrive until Friday morning. Sadly, this meant I also missed Murs.

Let's address each part separately, and I'll give you an overview, in case you weren't there, or hadn't even heard about it, and wonder why you should go next year. Basically, because SXSW has become a zoo, and for those of us in California, is far away anyway. New Noise is sort of like a mini version of the music portion of SXSW.

The biggest highlight was the caliber of speakers: people top in their field, capped by the keynote from Pandora founder, Tim Westergren. It was pretty universally looked upon as the best session of the two days.

But along the way, we were treated to people from all aspects of the music industry: A&R execs, suits from labels, people working with greening the musical landscape, musicians, software developers, lawyers, managers, and Internet entrepreneuers. All of them provided their take on where we are at during this moment in music history.

Essentially, the gist of the conference sessions was this: The big four music companies are overly bureaucratic and useless; smaller niche music publishers are the hot item of the day; terrestrial radio is dead, but Internet radio is alive and thriving.

The ones with the power now, in case no one had noticed: the consumers and the musicians themselves. Musicians are now compelled to become even greater musical marketers than ever before, and if they do, they will be hugely compensated (as long as they are good).

The old routines of being a band, playing in clubs, getting noticed by someone, getting groomed and signed to a label, having the label package and promote you (and take nearly all of your royalties, thank you very much) have happily gone. The labels would then push your product to targeted radio stations, who would play it into nauseating boredom (OK, that last editorialism was mine), and you would have a fantastic hit on your hands.

The new model is to promote your band everywhere: MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, cyberspace at large. If you attract the attention of an A&R rep (yes, they exist and are seeking talent), you might get directed to a label which specializes in your type of music. Or they might counsel you to stay on your own. (Having your music on iTunes is a good thing, but having it, even for free, on your own website is better, because you get to keep the email of the customer and retarget them.)

In music, as in many areas of entertainment, it's about putting together, packaging and marketing your "brand." Building a customer fan base, who tends to be fiercely loyal and loves to give you money, and keeping those fans happy.

You can seek out "airplay" anywhere you choose: of course, Internet radio is still popular, but there are also podcasts, UStream, YouTube, fan sites, etc. The niche areas have taken the place of radio as far as breaking artists, according to panelists, including some who worked at major stations in major markets.

The "new DJ" has become the music supervisor at a TV production company. If you get your song on one of those shows, you can make bank. In fact, the music jackpot today is no longer getting on a major radio station in a major market, but rather, getting "an iTunes commercial and at the end of Grey's Anatomy." I hear The Submarines (who've had both) out there smiling, somewhere.

In short, the future looks great for pretty much everyone, except the major labels and terrestrial radio. The artists are reaching more fans more directly. The A&R people are signing more people they are excited about. The consumers get many more choices in as many ways as they can handle them. And lots of people are thinking of ways to get that new music to you more enticingly (hopefully with ads attached somehow).

What does the future look like? Well, no one knows really. The people on the two Green panels (promoters on one, musicians on another) believe that working a low-carbon footprint into every concert is very much on the horizon (apparently R&B and hip hop artists are dragging their feet the most). Some would like to see recycling worked into every aspect of a concert tour, as the norm, rather than the exception. Many on the panels see this as doable in the near future.

"Every artist when given a choice: do you want to recycle? will say yes," said Chris Baumgartner of MusicMatters.

One person stated that they thought at least one of the four majors would also die within the next year. Another stated that they thought Billboard magazine would go out of business by year's end (probably an easy call too). One person stated it most succinctly: "The [majors] were so busy looking for the 'next big thing,' they neglected the one that came along: the Internet. They were blindsided by it. They didn't expect that at all. They are still trying to catch up, but it's too late." One called them "dinosaurs." Another said that bureaucratic music labels move to slowly (in this age of Now) to be effective at all.

The genie's out of the bottle, in short. Consumers now have the power, and they like it. Musicians have more money, and they like it. Radio's structured playlist system, where the real DJs don't even get to pick the music, is dead. It has been replaced by choice-filled Internet radio: both former terrestrial versions gone Internet and up-and-comers with spiffy software like Pandora, Blip and last.fm. What is not to like about all these things?

All of these are things that most of us knew, but still, it was good to hear it over and over from so many different aspects of the business. And if you were a musician, you might have walked in there, thinking that the best path would be to try to get signed to a major and get your music into the hands of a radio DJ. You would've walked out of there realizing that instead you need to fine tune your message, your method of reaching fans, even giving music away to do so, and that getting signed anywhere might not be the best way for you to make money, unless it's with a specialty label who features your type of band. As always, the most important thing is to be a great musician with something to say, and an innovative way to say it. Good luck!

NEXT UP: The music at New Noise