Gentlemen,
I've had this idea for awhile now, and I want to run it by you.
I submit to you, that over the past 10 years, the most successful musical group in the world has been Linkin Park.
Defining success is obviously nearly impossible in the music industry, and no one definition will do. For example, if we're talking money or following among one demographic, then its Bieber. If we're talking test of time, then it would simply be whichever band has been around longest while still making music (Aerosmith? The Stones?) So my thinking actually combines several definitions to support my thesis.
Full disclosure: I am a big LP fan, but I think you will see that my approach is not very biased.
They hit the scene with One Step Closer, a hard rock song that appealed greatly to the Metallica-lover in me. Obviously, not a truly great (or necessarily good) song, but it did have mass appeal, hitting #5 on the US Alternative chart.
Shortly thereafter came "In The End." Yeah you all remember it. This thing was HUGE, peaking at #2 on the US charts (not genre specific, 2 on the OVERALL chart). It was softer, and a much different alternative to One Step Closer. It was almost undefinable by genre standards.
The next stage in their career was the song Numb. This song is known for being on their mashup album with Jay-Z (Numb/Encore--you know it), which was phenomenal. It also showed Linkin Park reinvent itself, which is a continuing theme with their career.
LP then reinvented itself again with Shadow of the Day, a softcore, poignant song with widespread appeal (15 on the US chart). If LP was thought of as a versatile band before, this song sealed the deal.
2010 saw them return to their hardcore roots with the Catalyst. While considered hard rock, it isn't a typical thrash song. Like In the End, it seemed to break the boundaries of traditional genres. Indeed, Linkin Park itself is has seem to become its own genre.
Leave Out All the rest is another notable song as it would most likely be classified as a hard rock song, but centers around the story of an old man close to death, regretting the way he's treated his friends and family, (asking: "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done. Help me leave behind some reason to be missed"). Powerful lyrics usually absent from most rock songs.
In addition to LP, I think its appropriate to include Fort Minor, Mike Shinoda's side project as well. It further proves the versatility with the adrenaline-pumping rap Remember the Name (you all know it--"This is 10% luck, 20% skill...") and the tearjerking Where'd You Go, a song along the lines of Shadow of the Day, with poignant lyrics similar to Leave Out All The Rest.
Linkin Park debuted as a hard rock group, but has continually reinvented itself, achieving widespread appeal whle still maintaining its core base and not losing its identity. I think its a rare thing in music, and they have done it better than anyone in the past decade. I would even go as far to say that, given their accomplishments, they are underrated in musical lore.
I leave you with a list of some notable songs, and I refer all of you to their list of singles on Wikipedia, which I believe you will find very impressive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkin_Park_discography#Singles
I'm sure you will recognize more songs than you think, and if you haven't heard any of the following songs, YouTube them immediately: Shadow of the Day, Where'd You Go, The Catalyst.
Top 20 US (Main) Chart:
In the End (#2)
Numb (#11)
Breaking the Habit (#20)
Numb/Encore (#20)
What I've Done (#7)
Shadow of the Day (#15)
New Divide (#6)
#1 US Alterntive Chart
In the End
Somewhere I Belong
Faint
Numb
Lying From You
Breaking the Habit
What I've Done
New Divide
The Catalyst
Waiting for the End
Ove Love,
Phil
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Halloween - A Month Late
Gentlemen,
I do love this post. Valid point brought up by everyone, and it really got my thought machine pumping (why yes, that IS a euphemism!)
I will attempt to point out the flaws in trying to classify a good costume based off a discrete point system.All these points and numbers are too much for me to keep track of, mainly since I can't do math, and absolutely refuse to learn. So my blog will be almost exclusively anecdotal.
I saw someone in a Quail Man costume several Halloweens ago. Quail Man! Brilliant beyond all brilliance. I was stunned at the simplicity of it, yet to me, at that particular party, at that particular moment in time, 44 particular beers deep, it was the perfect costume.
Fast forward 20 minutes. I see another Quail Man costume. This sent me into a fit of rage that would make Achilles look like Richard Simmons. It was so upsetting because I was so enthralled by the originality of Quail Man, that seeing it duplicated just ruined it. It went from being my all-time favorite costume to an overdone cliche in a matter of minutes. To this day I still hate that second guy.
What made it a great costume was clearly the nostalgia factor (henceforth called the n-factor, cause that other word is too long to spell). We all know and love Doug, but probably haven't even thought about it in over a decade (except for Bo Burnham's epic song lyric: "I'm like Doug's friend Skeeter whenever I see her/Cause I skeet her so hard people call her Patty Mayonnaise).
You can't underestimate the n-factor. Case in point, this year, I bought red sweatpants, a red long sleeve t-shirt, and a red t-shirt and mask from Hot Topic a few days before Halloween. I knew it would be a terrible costume: store bought, cheap, not much thought into it. However, that night, no less than 10 people asked to get pictures with me. What store bought costume could elicit this reaction, you ask?
The one and only Jason, the Red Ranger.
It was epic. But to me, it was a throwaway costume, and I was expecting to be a huge bust. This overturns Moran's notions (and my previous notions) about thoughtfulness, store bought, cliche, etc.
I think trying to set a scoring system for Halloween would take mathematicians and and string theorists centuries to crack, and it still may be a fruitless endeavor.
Colls I hope you appreciate this, but I take the Potter Stewart approach to great Halloween costumes: I know it when I see it.
Quick aside: the best costume I have ever seen was last year. A guy at Landsdowne Pub had created a fully functioning Citgo sign. It was a work of engineering genius, let alone Halloween genius.
This gentleman finished second in the costume contest. To none other than Taryn Coster, and her Crazy Cat Lady costume. True story.
Potter
I do love this post. Valid point brought up by everyone, and it really got my thought machine pumping (why yes, that IS a euphemism!)
I will attempt to point out the flaws in trying to classify a good costume based off a discrete point system.All these points and numbers are too much for me to keep track of, mainly since I can't do math, and absolutely refuse to learn. So my blog will be almost exclusively anecdotal.
I saw someone in a Quail Man costume several Halloweens ago. Quail Man! Brilliant beyond all brilliance. I was stunned at the simplicity of it, yet to me, at that particular party, at that particular moment in time, 44 particular beers deep, it was the perfect costume.
Fast forward 20 minutes. I see another Quail Man costume. This sent me into a fit of rage that would make Achilles look like Richard Simmons. It was so upsetting because I was so enthralled by the originality of Quail Man, that seeing it duplicated just ruined it. It went from being my all-time favorite costume to an overdone cliche in a matter of minutes. To this day I still hate that second guy.
What made it a great costume was clearly the nostalgia factor (henceforth called the n-factor, cause that other word is too long to spell). We all know and love Doug, but probably haven't even thought about it in over a decade (except for Bo Burnham's epic song lyric: "I'm like Doug's friend Skeeter whenever I see her/Cause I skeet her so hard people call her Patty Mayonnaise).
You can't underestimate the n-factor. Case in point, this year, I bought red sweatpants, a red long sleeve t-shirt, and a red t-shirt and mask from Hot Topic a few days before Halloween. I knew it would be a terrible costume: store bought, cheap, not much thought into it. However, that night, no less than 10 people asked to get pictures with me. What store bought costume could elicit this reaction, you ask?
The one and only Jason, the Red Ranger.
It was epic. But to me, it was a throwaway costume, and I was expecting to be a huge bust. This overturns Moran's notions (and my previous notions) about thoughtfulness, store bought, cliche, etc.
I think trying to set a scoring system for Halloween would take mathematicians and and string theorists centuries to crack, and it still may be a fruitless endeavor.
Colls I hope you appreciate this, but I take the Potter Stewart approach to great Halloween costumes: I know it when I see it.
Quick aside: the best costume I have ever seen was last year. A guy at Landsdowne Pub had created a fully functioning Citgo sign. It was a work of engineering genius, let alone Halloween genius.
This gentleman finished second in the costume contest. To none other than Taryn Coster, and her Crazy Cat Lady costume. True story.
Potter
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The Essentials of Judging Halloween Costumery
On a later date, I will have to publish my philosophy on prankery, which developed one day at the office as we discussed various important criteria and categories of pranking, the latter of which includes:
So here I give you my essentials to judging Halloween costumery. Below follows an approximate scoring guide to judging Halloween costumes. Please use it and share it with your friends this holiday season.
First Principles:
So now tell me what I could have done better and what I forgot to include.
- College dorm pranking
- Office pranking
- Family pranking
- Relationship pranking
- Long-distance pranking
- Pranking strangers
So here I give you my essentials to judging Halloween costumery. Below follows an approximate scoring guide to judging Halloween costumes. Please use it and share it with your friends this holiday season.
First Principles:
- Certain categories of Halloween costumes exist.
- Some are divisions such as
- store-bought and homemade
- generic (ex. ghost) and specific (ex. Batman)
- gendered and neutral
- sexy and non-sexy
- recently topical (ex. bruised Tiger Woods) and timeless traditional (witch), etc.
- planned-in-advance and last-minute
- "in-character" and normal everyday
- unique and popular
- individual and group
- Some divisions are skewed in favor of one of their characteristics. Others are neutral.
- Homemade is better than store-bought
- Specific is better than generic
- Recently topical is better than timeless
- Unique is better than popular
- "In-character" is better than normal everyday
- Groups are better than individuals
- Start with a base of 50 points.
- Award up to 10 points for store-bought, based on your judgment of the expense and difficulty of acquiring this costume.
- For homemade, award 5 points for each piece of the costume that had to be either made or found.
- Award up to 10 points for generic costumes, based on the execution relative to previously seen traditional examples.
- Award up to 20 points for specific characters, with more points being awarded depending on the disparity between how often you have seen the character in your life and the number of times you have seen that costume. One-of-a-kind specific yet popular characters get the full 20.
- Non-sexy, neither add or deduct points.
- Sexy, add up to 15 points for truly sexy costumes and deduct up to 25 points as needed to penalize poorly judged sexiness.
- For timeless costumes, award a maximum of 10 points deducting 1 point for each other time you have seen that particular costume through that Halloween season.
- For topical costumes, award up to 10 points each for a) the newsworthiness of the reference and b) the "wow" factor of obscurity of the reference. There is an obvious tradeoff between the two, but it can be precisely calibrated for the full 20 points.
- Costumes planned more than 3 weeks in advance get a 20 point bonus, but must deduct 2 points for each additional week of planning time. (Seriously, if you have been working since August, go get a life.)
- Last minute costumes must deduct 15 points, but can earn it back by getting 5 points each in the following categories, a) self-explanatory costume, b) made from available materials, c) number of costume elements and props that are on target.
- An additional 15 points is awarded for each truly unique costume.
- An additional 10 points is deducted for having a costume that anyone else had that Halloween season. (We have to encourage variety).
- Normal everyday is not awarded extra points, but "in-character" costumes receive up to 5 points for each of the following:
- Physical presence in character
- Voice and catchphrases in character
- In-character actions and responses towards others
- Consistent commitment to the role
- Finally, individuals receive no added points, but groups receive up to 5 bonus points for each member (with a cap at 5 members). 1 point is given per member when each one is only loosely related and the full maximum of 5 is given when everyone is coordinated.
So now tell me what I could have done better and what I forgot to include.
Matt's Thoughts on Late Night
The topic of late night TV is a really interesting one for me, since I spent some of my summertime on vacation staying up late to watch late night TV just because I could. I would like to give myself some well-earned praise and say I am a terrific late night TV watcher. I could stay up to watch the second half of a Craig Ferguson show, even though I could just as easily go to bed. I would wager money that I have seen Ferguson's predecessor Craig Kilborn do the "5 Questions" segment hundreds of times. My credentials are really first-rate here.
But my conclusions are this:
The Simmon's podcast also points out another aspect in that certain shows have responded to this competition for time and attention while others shows haven't. One positive response has been to do a shorter show. Could Colbert entertain me for an hour every night? Surely, yes. But he is probably better off doing 15 minutes of "A" material and one interview than piling on extra interviews, some so-so segments and an extended monologue a la the old hands Leno and Letterman. This leads to his doing a show that leaves people talking about it the next day, rather than just doing the show night after night as people wind down before bed. The other successful route is to do the standard show, but have some really edgy or standout segments. This seems to me to be how Kimmel and Fallon have been able to do strong network shows even as relative latecomers in an increasing competitive field that is meanwhile losing its mainstream appeal. If you are not doing a tight show that never really lets up, or some buzzy pieces that will get replayed on Hulu, YouTube, and other new media, then you are going to suffer mightily. And that, in summary, is why I have yet to mention my old favorite, Conan. Even after having to jump networks, it still feels like that show (which is also limited by its network, lead-ins, guest bookings, etc.) is aspiring to do the same old late night show. As they say, it is not ready for prime time. Or in this case, the late night talk show field of today.
But my conclusions are this:
- Late night TV shows depend on having a reliable core audience. Think Leno and Letterman and their respective over 50 crowds. Stewart and Colbert with their college-educated liberal-leaning viewers. And Handler and her "Sex and the City" enthusiasts.
- If a show doesn't have a locked-in audience that has routinely watched the program for decades like Letterman and Leno, then it has to really appeal to that niche audience. Stewart, Colbert, Handler all have little niche factors and pet subjects. Jimmy Kimmel has a "Man Show" flavor, and Jimmy Fallon has built his show by catching the pulse of a younger crowd with video segments, "Saved by the Bell" references, social media build-ins, and an overall slightly fresh take on a late night show.
- If you are not a routine viewer of these shows (and I put myself in this category) you can probably enjoy any of them, but you will probably also enjoy a sitcom repeat or any other generic alternative.
The Simmon's podcast also points out another aspect in that certain shows have responded to this competition for time and attention while others shows haven't. One positive response has been to do a shorter show. Could Colbert entertain me for an hour every night? Surely, yes. But he is probably better off doing 15 minutes of "A" material and one interview than piling on extra interviews, some so-so segments and an extended monologue a la the old hands Leno and Letterman. This leads to his doing a show that leaves people talking about it the next day, rather than just doing the show night after night as people wind down before bed. The other successful route is to do the standard show, but have some really edgy or standout segments. This seems to me to be how Kimmel and Fallon have been able to do strong network shows even as relative latecomers in an increasing competitive field that is meanwhile losing its mainstream appeal. If you are not doing a tight show that never really lets up, or some buzzy pieces that will get replayed on Hulu, YouTube, and other new media, then you are going to suffer mightily. And that, in summary, is why I have yet to mention my old favorite, Conan. Even after having to jump networks, it still feels like that show (which is also limited by its network, lead-ins, guest bookings, etc.) is aspiring to do the same old late night show. As they say, it is not ready for prime time. Or in this case, the late night talk show field of today.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Re: The State of Late Night Television
Disclaimer: I am rarely awake when any of the late night shows air anymore. I actually don't remember the last time I watched one of these programs in real time. I am far less informed on this topic than I was during freshmen year when we literally watched Conan every night until 1:30AM. This being the case, I have a somewhat different perspective on this topic.
I occasionally watch the 7PM and 7:30PM reruns of Stewart and Colbert the following day or on Hulu. I tend to watch all of The Daily Show and just the highlights of The Colbert Report. I still remember watching the first episode of The Colbert Report during sophomore year. You could tell how nervous Colbert was and how well he wanted the show to go. "The Word" segment was my clear favorite, but it seems like that's not a part of the show anymore or at least not commonly enough for a sporadic viewer like myself to notice. On the other hand, I do generally follow what's going on with The Daily Show, but that's more a function of my interest in Stewart as a personality more so than an interest in the show itself. Whether it's the Rally to Restore Sanity or Stewart's many appearances as the guest on other talk shows, I do enjoy listening to the man's opinions whether I agree with them or not. My current knowledge of the rest of the late night hosts is limited to what New York Magazine puts in their "Last Night on Late Night" video compilation.
Bill Simmons has mentioned this before and both Colls and Phil made similar points in their posts, but there is just not a compelling enough case to sit through an hour of the traditional late nigh program anymore. You can watch "the good parts" the next day or whenever you want on Hulu or YouTube. To appreciate fully the recurring skits you have to watch consistently and that is too often an unrealistic demand on our late night attention spans when we can easily switch channels and watch 20 second highlight segments on SportsCenter. I also agree wholeheartedly with Phil's point that the draw of celebrity access that late night shows rely on has weakened to the point of irrelevancy. You'll notice that none of the videos Colls posted were of celebrity interviews. Some of the skits involved celebrities and are doubtlessly made more memorable by their appearance, but the sit down interviews themselves are often bland and unremarkable. I assume this is the result of the increasing role of PR managers and publicists whose success is measured by the absence of any outlandish or controversial associations to their client. For this reason, the interviews I have seen often seem over-produced or generic; we find out that "celebrities are actually not that different from the rest of us" or hear "a funny story about working with Scorcese for the first time." The only "must-see" segments are no longer restricted to real time viewing, which relegates the show itself to second-tier or third-tier importance behind Seinfeld reruns or sports programming.
As I said, I am usually not awake when these shows air, but these are the reasons why even when I am awake, I do not watch these programs. During the pre-Twitter and celebrity reality show days, I did in fact watch these shows with more regularity so I assume that some or even most of the motive for the decline in my interest has less to do with shows than with outside cultural factors. But, the shows have been complicit in their growing irrelevance. They have shown an almost intransigent resistance to change in this regard, which coupled with the explosion in viewer choice helps explain the decline in viewership across the board. The general format, i.e. short monologue, skit, interview, maybe another skit, interview, musical or comedic act, has been in place for years. That format will remain good enough as long as the baby boomers are alive and watching. After that, I expect to see more half-hour and targeted shows resembling Comedy Central's approach.
If I had to pick the "titans" of late night then I'd go with Stewart in first and Colbert slightly behind. Especially as we head toward the 2012 general election, I'd expect both of their shows to move up in the ratings. Stewart has been on the cover of New York Magazine and Rolling Stone within the past 12 months. You can't say that about any of the other hosts. Despite being on Comedy Central and Stewart's protestations, both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have strong points of view, and the trend toward opinionated news and culture sources only strengthens the import of both shows while weakening the relevance of the decidedly impartial network late night shows. The most (only?) genuinely interesting event in network late night over the last five years was the NBC/Conan/Leno debacle. It's not a good sign when a debacle is the most poignant example of your cultural significance. I would, however, recommend that you all see the documentary "Conan O'Brien Can't Stop". It ranks up there with "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work" in its excellence at displaying the manic obsession its subject has with working and staying relevant. I laughed more at/with Conan during the documentary than during any of his shows over the past few years.
I occasionally watch the 7PM and 7:30PM reruns of Stewart and Colbert the following day or on Hulu. I tend to watch all of The Daily Show and just the highlights of The Colbert Report. I still remember watching the first episode of The Colbert Report during sophomore year. You could tell how nervous Colbert was and how well he wanted the show to go. "The Word" segment was my clear favorite, but it seems like that's not a part of the show anymore or at least not commonly enough for a sporadic viewer like myself to notice. On the other hand, I do generally follow what's going on with The Daily Show, but that's more a function of my interest in Stewart as a personality more so than an interest in the show itself. Whether it's the Rally to Restore Sanity or Stewart's many appearances as the guest on other talk shows, I do enjoy listening to the man's opinions whether I agree with them or not. My current knowledge of the rest of the late night hosts is limited to what New York Magazine puts in their "Last Night on Late Night" video compilation.
Bill Simmons has mentioned this before and both Colls and Phil made similar points in their posts, but there is just not a compelling enough case to sit through an hour of the traditional late nigh program anymore. You can watch "the good parts" the next day or whenever you want on Hulu or YouTube. To appreciate fully the recurring skits you have to watch consistently and that is too often an unrealistic demand on our late night attention spans when we can easily switch channels and watch 20 second highlight segments on SportsCenter. I also agree wholeheartedly with Phil's point that the draw of celebrity access that late night shows rely on has weakened to the point of irrelevancy. You'll notice that none of the videos Colls posted were of celebrity interviews. Some of the skits involved celebrities and are doubtlessly made more memorable by their appearance, but the sit down interviews themselves are often bland and unremarkable. I assume this is the result of the increasing role of PR managers and publicists whose success is measured by the absence of any outlandish or controversial associations to their client. For this reason, the interviews I have seen often seem over-produced or generic; we find out that "celebrities are actually not that different from the rest of us" or hear "a funny story about working with Scorcese for the first time." The only "must-see" segments are no longer restricted to real time viewing, which relegates the show itself to second-tier or third-tier importance behind Seinfeld reruns or sports programming.
As I said, I am usually not awake when these shows air, but these are the reasons why even when I am awake, I do not watch these programs. During the pre-Twitter and celebrity reality show days, I did in fact watch these shows with more regularity so I assume that some or even most of the motive for the decline in my interest has less to do with shows than with outside cultural factors. But, the shows have been complicit in their growing irrelevance. They have shown an almost intransigent resistance to change in this regard, which coupled with the explosion in viewer choice helps explain the decline in viewership across the board. The general format, i.e. short monologue, skit, interview, maybe another skit, interview, musical or comedic act, has been in place for years. That format will remain good enough as long as the baby boomers are alive and watching. After that, I expect to see more half-hour and targeted shows resembling Comedy Central's approach.
If I had to pick the "titans" of late night then I'd go with Stewart in first and Colbert slightly behind. Especially as we head toward the 2012 general election, I'd expect both of their shows to move up in the ratings. Stewart has been on the cover of New York Magazine and Rolling Stone within the past 12 months. You can't say that about any of the other hosts. Despite being on Comedy Central and Stewart's protestations, both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have strong points of view, and the trend toward opinionated news and culture sources only strengthens the import of both shows while weakening the relevance of the decidedly impartial network late night shows. The most (only?) genuinely interesting event in network late night over the last five years was the NBC/Conan/Leno debacle. It's not a good sign when a debacle is the most poignant example of your cultural significance. I would, however, recommend that you all see the documentary "Conan O'Brien Can't Stop". It ranks up there with "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work" in its excellence at displaying the manic obsession its subject has with working and staying relevant. I laughed more at/with Conan during the documentary than during any of his shows over the past few years.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Re: The State of Late Night Television?
This is an interesting topic to me, and one I actually was thinking about just last week. I had Conan on one night, watched about 15 minutes of it, then switched over to a Seinfeld re-run (the original Art Van de Lay episode--still hilarious).
Late night talk shows used to be a cornerstone of family time. To call Johnny Carson an icon is to understate what he really was. He eclipsed what any current (or future, I would dare say) talk show host could ever hope to be (I am excluding Oprah; I think she falls in a different genre).
I don't think there is one thing we can point to that would satisfactorily explain the relegated status of late night TV. But I will offer a few things which i think play a factor:
1. More options
Talk shows had little to no competition until realistically the 1990's. It's no longer just Leno vs. Letterman. Like Colls said, now it includes Kimmel, Fallon, Conan, Ferguson, Stewart, Colbert, Handler, Lopez (I think that was cancelled, but my point still stands), and Handler. This is a far cry back when Ed Sullivan or Johnny Carson were literally the only shows in town.
The options extend far past talk show hosts though: Television back when Carson ruled the airwaves was restricted to like four channels. Now with more options, it's getting harder to watch a talk show which follows the same format every night for five nights a week. As I mentioned in the opener, I switched quickly to a Seinfeld rerun, but that just as easily could have been a hockey game, a History channel special, or a movie.
2. An aging fan base
I remember back when Conan took over the Tonight Show, there was a big debate as to why Conan wasn't getting the same rating Leno was? Conan was younger, more energetic, had a cult-like fan base, and appealed to the younger demographic in general.
I think they are dead on with their assumptions, however, the viewer base for late night talk shows is declining rapidly. I would say 9 out of 10 people age 18-24 would prefer Conan over Leno, however, I would say that less than 1 in 10 people in that age group actually watch talk shows. This goes back to point number one about there being more available options.
Contrast that to the older generations, which grew up with talk shows. Watching Carson/Leno/Letterman was a part of their nightly routine. They're the ones still watching, and Conan's humor just isn't for them. I guess my point is that loyalty to talk shows in general trumps loyalty to a specific host.
3. Access
I do remember a handful of occasions years ago when I thought to myself "wow, I really want to see Conan's interview with (insert celebrity) tonight." It seemed fantastic to get a candid look into the life of a famous actor/author/sports figure.
I haven't had that thought about a talk show since probably 2006. 60 Minutes certainly arouses that feeling occasionally, but Conan? Kimmel? Fallon?--no.
I think part of this is that we currently have access to what every celebrity is doing/saying/thinking 24 hours a day. If I am that interested in what a celebrity has to say, why wait until 11:30 PM when it's literally just a mouse-click away. The social media boom is a big factor in this (case-in-point: Tom Hanks' most recent tweet was 14 minutes ago). Same idea with websites like TMZ and Perez Hilton (both the scum of the universe, mind you--pretty sure if Dante was alive he would include a new circle of hell solely for these asshats).
I'm not going to give a rundown of each of the hosts, as Colls covered all the bases there, and I have nothing intelligent to add.
Last point: huge ups to Colls for taking the reins and getting us back into gear. All it took was a thought-provoking topic, and I'm back in 100%.
One love,
PBR
Late night talk shows used to be a cornerstone of family time. To call Johnny Carson an icon is to understate what he really was. He eclipsed what any current (or future, I would dare say) talk show host could ever hope to be (I am excluding Oprah; I think she falls in a different genre).
I don't think there is one thing we can point to that would satisfactorily explain the relegated status of late night TV. But I will offer a few things which i think play a factor:
1. More options
Talk shows had little to no competition until realistically the 1990's. It's no longer just Leno vs. Letterman. Like Colls said, now it includes Kimmel, Fallon, Conan, Ferguson, Stewart, Colbert, Handler, Lopez (I think that was cancelled, but my point still stands), and Handler. This is a far cry back when Ed Sullivan or Johnny Carson were literally the only shows in town.
The options extend far past talk show hosts though: Television back when Carson ruled the airwaves was restricted to like four channels. Now with more options, it's getting harder to watch a talk show which follows the same format every night for five nights a week. As I mentioned in the opener, I switched quickly to a Seinfeld rerun, but that just as easily could have been a hockey game, a History channel special, or a movie.
2. An aging fan base
I remember back when Conan took over the Tonight Show, there was a big debate as to why Conan wasn't getting the same rating Leno was? Conan was younger, more energetic, had a cult-like fan base, and appealed to the younger demographic in general.
I think they are dead on with their assumptions, however, the viewer base for late night talk shows is declining rapidly. I would say 9 out of 10 people age 18-24 would prefer Conan over Leno, however, I would say that less than 1 in 10 people in that age group actually watch talk shows. This goes back to point number one about there being more available options.
Contrast that to the older generations, which grew up with talk shows. Watching Carson/Leno/Letterman was a part of their nightly routine. They're the ones still watching, and Conan's humor just isn't for them. I guess my point is that loyalty to talk shows in general trumps loyalty to a specific host.
3. Access
I do remember a handful of occasions years ago when I thought to myself "wow, I really want to see Conan's interview with (insert celebrity) tonight." It seemed fantastic to get a candid look into the life of a famous actor/author/sports figure.
I haven't had that thought about a talk show since probably 2006. 60 Minutes certainly arouses that feeling occasionally, but Conan? Kimmel? Fallon?--no.
I think part of this is that we currently have access to what every celebrity is doing/saying/thinking 24 hours a day. If I am that interested in what a celebrity has to say, why wait until 11:30 PM when it's literally just a mouse-click away. The social media boom is a big factor in this (case-in-point: Tom Hanks' most recent tweet was 14 minutes ago). Same idea with websites like TMZ and Perez Hilton (both the scum of the universe, mind you--pretty sure if Dante was alive he would include a new circle of hell solely for these asshats).
I'm not going to give a rundown of each of the hosts, as Colls covered all the bases there, and I have nothing intelligent to add.
Last point: huge ups to Colls for taking the reins and getting us back into gear. All it took was a thought-provoking topic, and I'm back in 100%.
One love,
PBR
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Re: Ten Years Later
Like everyone else, I remember exactly where I was when I first heard about the attack. I was inside my high school and walking in between classes. One of my best friends stopped me and said that a terrorist plane had flown into the World Trade Center. This happened to be a friend with whom I had an almost exclusively sarcastic rapport so I initially thought he was joking. But, within a couple of minutes word had spread about what was really happening and I didn't know what to think. At the time, my father was living in Manhattan so I remember wanting to get in touch with him to make sure he was OK. I was unable to do so for a few hours and remember feeling more uneasy about that specific uncertainty than about the broader attack. Eventually, one of my siblings contacted me to assure me that our father was OK.
I went right home after school ended and started watching coverage of the attack. Every once in a while I would go outside and stand on my front lawn. Downtown Manhattan is less than 30 miles from my hometown so I was able to see clearly the clouds of smoke in the sky. I came back to the television and except for a couple of brief phone calls I just sat and watched for hours. My first class the next day was Spanish. Clearly, no one was sure how they should be acting. We had a substitute teacher for that whole year and he asked us to write about how we felt in Spanish. The rest of the next few days were filled discussing if anyone knew people in the plane or building. There was at least one former student from my high school who was killed, but I did not know anyone personally who was directly affected.
I don't remember feeling afraid or even angry. I don't think I had the cognitive ability to even process the gravity of what had just taken place. For a sophomore in high school who had practically no true sense of international events, let alone global terrorism, the event seemed surreal. The footage of burning buildings and crowds of people running away from smoke seemed like a movie. What I do remember thinking though was that I had just taken part in history somehow. More so than any other immediate feeling was this idea that I had witnessed something important for the first time. Whether you call it the "loss of innocence" or not, it was unequivocally the first event that I felt a part of that had significance beyond my own life.
What's paradoxical is that the further I get from the actual event the sadder I've become when thinking back on it. I could barely watch the 10 year anniversary coverage this last weekend without wanting to change channels immediately. At first, I thought that maybe I was just taking the easy way out and letting myself off the hook by keeping my attention on more mundane activities. But, even just seeing the front of every magazine cover, with the photos of people jumping to their deaths or the second plane about to crash into the tower, I realize that I've been affected by this event in ways I don't consciously recognize. The plane in the photo actually does look like a weapon now.
I'm not the bravest person in the slightest, but I don't worry too much about my safety living in Manhattan. I notice the extra policeman in the subway stations around the anniversary week, but for me this actually has the intended effect of making me feel safer. I walked by ground zero nearly everyday of the work week during my first two years of professional life. Whether I was too busy trying to get to work or I just had something else on my mind, I didn't think about 9/11 during this time. What's unfortunate is that there is so much construction and distraction in general in New York City that during the hustle of a regular day you can forget that the reason this new building is being put up is completely different than the reason some other new building is being put up. But, when I hear people use the phrase "9/11" I do feel this pang of sadness. This is especially so when people talk about the event in a context other than commemoration. It's hard not to think about the events that took place after 9/11 and in a lot of ways in response to 9/11. This is when I start to feel really disheartened. It's not always clear to me how I've changed as a result of this event, but I do know that it's one of the only issues I feel deep sadness about that didn't involve personal loss.
I went right home after school ended and started watching coverage of the attack. Every once in a while I would go outside and stand on my front lawn. Downtown Manhattan is less than 30 miles from my hometown so I was able to see clearly the clouds of smoke in the sky. I came back to the television and except for a couple of brief phone calls I just sat and watched for hours. My first class the next day was Spanish. Clearly, no one was sure how they should be acting. We had a substitute teacher for that whole year and he asked us to write about how we felt in Spanish. The rest of the next few days were filled discussing if anyone knew people in the plane or building. There was at least one former student from my high school who was killed, but I did not know anyone personally who was directly affected.
I don't remember feeling afraid or even angry. I don't think I had the cognitive ability to even process the gravity of what had just taken place. For a sophomore in high school who had practically no true sense of international events, let alone global terrorism, the event seemed surreal. The footage of burning buildings and crowds of people running away from smoke seemed like a movie. What I do remember thinking though was that I had just taken part in history somehow. More so than any other immediate feeling was this idea that I had witnessed something important for the first time. Whether you call it the "loss of innocence" or not, it was unequivocally the first event that I felt a part of that had significance beyond my own life.
What's paradoxical is that the further I get from the actual event the sadder I've become when thinking back on it. I could barely watch the 10 year anniversary coverage this last weekend without wanting to change channels immediately. At first, I thought that maybe I was just taking the easy way out and letting myself off the hook by keeping my attention on more mundane activities. But, even just seeing the front of every magazine cover, with the photos of people jumping to their deaths or the second plane about to crash into the tower, I realize that I've been affected by this event in ways I don't consciously recognize. The plane in the photo actually does look like a weapon now.
I'm not the bravest person in the slightest, but I don't worry too much about my safety living in Manhattan. I notice the extra policeman in the subway stations around the anniversary week, but for me this actually has the intended effect of making me feel safer. I walked by ground zero nearly everyday of the work week during my first two years of professional life. Whether I was too busy trying to get to work or I just had something else on my mind, I didn't think about 9/11 during this time. What's unfortunate is that there is so much construction and distraction in general in New York City that during the hustle of a regular day you can forget that the reason this new building is being put up is completely different than the reason some other new building is being put up. But, when I hear people use the phrase "9/11" I do feel this pang of sadness. This is especially so when people talk about the event in a context other than commemoration. It's hard not to think about the events that took place after 9/11 and in a lot of ways in response to 9/11. This is when I start to feel really disheartened. It's not always clear to me how I've changed as a result of this event, but I do know that it's one of the only issues I feel deep sadness about that didn't involve personal loss.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Ten years later
Gentlemen,
Almost ten years ago to the day, everything changed. Everything. 9/11 is one of a few ubiquitous phrases that isn't merely a "sign of the times" buzzword. It doesn't have the same playful innocence as words like Google, Facebook, or Twitter. However, like those words, 9/11 had no particular significance before that harrowing Tuesday a decade ago. It was just a date on the calendar. Now, those three numbers carry a somber and ever-present reminder that the world we live in is far different from that of our parents.
I find it only appropriate to reflect back now on how September 11, 2001 impacted us. Where were you? What were your immediate thoughts? How has it affected you to this day? And what images or memories does your mind conjure when you hear 9/11?
For us especially, it came at a particularly meaningful time. I was a 14 year old high school freshman 5 days into a brand new private school where the only people I knew were the handful of classmates that came with me from North Reading.
Gym class was my first period of the day. Over the loud speaker, Mr. O'Neill, our septuagenarian disciplinarian (you're damn right that rhymes) and golf coach came over the PA system. His voice is hard to describe: at once deep, powerful and commanding--but also comforting. If James Earl Jones and Barry Manilow had a child, his voice would sound like the man we affectionately refer to as Larry O.
I remember my first thought was "wow a pilot accidentally hit a skyscraper?" Then came the words that I will remember verbatim forever: "We believe this to be part of a wide scale terrorist attack on the United States of America."
Terrorism at this point was hardly part of my regular vocabulary. I remember reading about the USS Cole in eighth grade (also my first introduction to Osama bin Laden), but that happened in Yemen--light years away from American soil.
I didn't understand at the time how it would affect our country, our generation, or our world. Since that day, we've witnessed unprecedented national pride, two never-ending wars, the first black president, the deaths of thousands of young American soldiers, the killing of Osama bin Laden, and country more partisan and more divided than at any point since the American Civil War. For better, or for worse, 9/11 has shaped the world in which we live.
For me, my childhood ended on September 11, 2001. "Loss of innocence" is one of the literary archetypes, but that's not what happened that day. It was the loss of something different--something more, and something more personal. It was the loss of the world I knew, and the safety and security that came from living in that world.
It was the loss of a world, I must admit, I wish we could all go back to.
Almost ten years ago to the day, everything changed. Everything. 9/11 is one of a few ubiquitous phrases that isn't merely a "sign of the times" buzzword. It doesn't have the same playful innocence as words like Google, Facebook, or Twitter. However, like those words, 9/11 had no particular significance before that harrowing Tuesday a decade ago. It was just a date on the calendar. Now, those three numbers carry a somber and ever-present reminder that the world we live in is far different from that of our parents.
I find it only appropriate to reflect back now on how September 11, 2001 impacted us. Where were you? What were your immediate thoughts? How has it affected you to this day? And what images or memories does your mind conjure when you hear 9/11?
For us especially, it came at a particularly meaningful time. I was a 14 year old high school freshman 5 days into a brand new private school where the only people I knew were the handful of classmates that came with me from North Reading.
Gym class was my first period of the day. Over the loud speaker, Mr. O'Neill, our septuagenarian disciplinarian (you're damn right that rhymes) and golf coach came over the PA system. His voice is hard to describe: at once deep, powerful and commanding--but also comforting. If James Earl Jones and Barry Manilow had a child, his voice would sound like the man we affectionately refer to as Larry O.
I remember my first thought was "wow a pilot accidentally hit a skyscraper?" Then came the words that I will remember verbatim forever: "We believe this to be part of a wide scale terrorist attack on the United States of America."
Terrorism at this point was hardly part of my regular vocabulary. I remember reading about the USS Cole in eighth grade (also my first introduction to Osama bin Laden), but that happened in Yemen--light years away from American soil.
I didn't understand at the time how it would affect our country, our generation, or our world. Since that day, we've witnessed unprecedented national pride, two never-ending wars, the first black president, the deaths of thousands of young American soldiers, the killing of Osama bin Laden, and country more partisan and more divided than at any point since the American Civil War. For better, or for worse, 9/11 has shaped the world in which we live.
For me, my childhood ended on September 11, 2001. "Loss of innocence" is one of the literary archetypes, but that's not what happened that day. It was the loss of something different--something more, and something more personal. It was the loss of the world I knew, and the safety and security that came from living in that world.
It was the loss of a world, I must admit, I wish we could all go back to.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Is the NBA About to Overtake MLB as America's #2 Sport?
I want to start off this post with a comparison of two recent
championship series. Let's compare the 2009 World Series, in which the
Yankees beat the Phillies in 6 games, with the 2010 NBA Finals, in which
the Lakers beat the Celtics in 7 games. Specifically, I want to take a
look at the average number of viewers for each series as an indicator
of the popularity of each sport.
2009 World Series
6 Games
Avg. viewers: 19.3 million
[source Wikipedia]
2010 NBA Finals
7 Games
Avg. viewers: 18.1 million
[source Wikipedia]
The World Series ratings are higher than the NBA Finals and that is a pretty good indicator that baseball is the more popular sport. No argument here. Baseball's audience may be older than the hoops demo, but it is also much larger. What I want to argue about is not what are the facts on the ground, but what can we predict for the future. And even more so, I want to stake a claim: the day of the NBA surpassing MLB as the second most popular American sport is sooner than you think.
I want to share with you a few more figures. Now look at the Nielsen ratings (more easily obtained than the viewers totals, but otherwise comparable) for the last five championships in both sports:
MLB World Series Avg. Nielsen Ratings:
2006 - 10.1
2007 - 10.7
2008 - 8.5
2009 - 17.2
2010 - 8.25
NBA Finals Avg. Nielsen Ratings:
2007 - 6.2
2008 - 9.3
2009 - 8.4
2010 - 10.6
2011 - 10.2
What first strikes me about the graph above is how close the ratings are for these two sports. Both appear to have ratings consistenty around 10, with one outlier apiece. Now take out that outlier of a World Series in 2009 (defending champion Phillies + 10-year World Series Title drought Yankees + 2 of the top 5 US Metro Areas = millions more viewers than the average WS telecast), and there are two very apparent trends here. The MLB is pointed down and the NBA is on the rise. The 2010 NBA Finals rematching the Celtics and Lakers outrated the 2010 World Series between the Rangers and Giants (sadly both the second most popular teams by those names). But don't jump to blame the TV markets because the 2011 NBA Finals was more highly rated too and took place in the #4 Dallas-Fort Worth and in #11 San Francisco, which has a population only about one million less than #8 Miami from the NBA Finals [Source: Wikipedia]. I am also willing to bet that without the Yankee juggernaut to boost rating, the World Series will have lower ratings again this year. So this is where we stand today: baseball is losing ground, and basketball is gaining it.
My own interest in baseball has basically followed the career arc of the great Pedro Martinez. When Pedro was throwing near no-hitters night after night and K-ing guys out left and right, baseball was in a Golden (Sterioids) Era. Pedro may not have been MLB's signature guy, but he was characteristic of the charismatic, record-setting, once-in-a-lifetime performers in baseball. Bonds, Jeter, A-Rod, Manny, Ichiro, Sosa, McGwire, Clemens, Maddux, Rivera. All those famous one-name players, and yet how many of them did you just wince at reading? We didn't like that players used steroids, but there was a time when we liked watching all of them. We even liked watching less charismatic guys who were still great players: Nomar, Carlos Beltran, Carlos Delgado (I did it just for you, Phil), Gary Sheffield and Tom Glavine. They all had something of Pedro's charisma, superhuman talent, sense-of-the-moment and maybe even some huge career milestones or an amazing postseason performance. The list of talented players was long and strong. Today baseball is about defense and pitching, with way more no-hitters to see, but do we pay any more attention? Can we name 5 guys who are playing today who could comfortably fit on either of the prior lists?
But now in the NBA there is some hope. The NBA Wikipedia link above has this section and quote:
The end of this season left me wishing that the NBA season and playoffs would keep running all through the summer, first because I was so entertained and intrigued by this season and second because with the end of the NBA and an NFL/NBA lockout looming, it looked like all that was left was basebell. Baseball, once something that I used to link fondly with thoughts of summer, beer from the bottle, and fresh cut grass, has recently felt more like a chore. In an era of too-many-distractions from message threads on Facebook with college buddies to endless amounts of instant streaming video on Netflix, an NBA game can hold my attention for the whole three-plus hours, but I can barely train myself to sit and watch a half inning of baseball without wanting to reach for my phone or computer to Google something more interesting while I wait for the next pitch.
If I had to buy stock in either MLB or the NBA, based solely on their popularity not than finances sinces the NBA is a total mystery there, I would go for the NBA every time. MLB is not going to get much more popular internationally, but kids all over Asia, Europe, Latin America and even Africa know who the NBA's stars are. We care about sports somewhat because we played on teams when we were younger, in part because we admire the feats of skills and strategy, and in part because we don't have anything better to do sometimes. But mainly what keeps us tuning back in is the characters, teams, and stories that we start to care about. Right now, with basketball I am locked in. I care. But Michael and I recently talked about how we would each like to follow the Mets to make the summer more interesting and we both felt it was hard just to care enough. There just isn't a person, team or story in baseball to really make me care the way that Pedro could. So rest in retirement, Pedro. And rest in peace, baseball.
2009 World Series
6 Games
Avg. viewers: 19.3 million
[source Wikipedia]
2010 NBA Finals
7 Games
Avg. viewers: 18.1 million
[source Wikipedia]
The World Series ratings are higher than the NBA Finals and that is a pretty good indicator that baseball is the more popular sport. No argument here. Baseball's audience may be older than the hoops demo, but it is also much larger. What I want to argue about is not what are the facts on the ground, but what can we predict for the future. And even more so, I want to stake a claim: the day of the NBA surpassing MLB as the second most popular American sport is sooner than you think.
I want to share with you a few more figures. Now look at the Nielsen ratings (more easily obtained than the viewers totals, but otherwise comparable) for the last five championships in both sports:
MLB World Series Avg. Nielsen Ratings:
2006 - 10.1
2007 - 10.7
2008 - 8.5
2009 - 17.2
2010 - 8.25
NBA Finals Avg. Nielsen Ratings:
2007 - 6.2
2008 - 9.3
2009 - 8.4
2010 - 10.6
2011 - 10.2
What first strikes me about the graph above is how close the ratings are for these two sports. Both appear to have ratings consistenty around 10, with one outlier apiece. Now take out that outlier of a World Series in 2009 (defending champion Phillies + 10-year World Series Title drought Yankees + 2 of the top 5 US Metro Areas = millions more viewers than the average WS telecast), and there are two very apparent trends here. The MLB is pointed down and the NBA is on the rise. The 2010 NBA Finals rematching the Celtics and Lakers outrated the 2010 World Series between the Rangers and Giants (sadly both the second most popular teams by those names). But don't jump to blame the TV markets because the 2011 NBA Finals was more highly rated too and took place in the #4 Dallas-Fort Worth and in #11 San Francisco, which has a population only about one million less than #8 Miami from the NBA Finals [Source: Wikipedia]. I am also willing to bet that without the Yankee juggernaut to boost rating, the World Series will have lower ratings again this year. So this is where we stand today: baseball is losing ground, and basketball is gaining it.
My own interest in baseball has basically followed the career arc of the great Pedro Martinez. When Pedro was throwing near no-hitters night after night and K-ing guys out left and right, baseball was in a Golden (Sterioids) Era. Pedro may not have been MLB's signature guy, but he was characteristic of the charismatic, record-setting, once-in-a-lifetime performers in baseball. Bonds, Jeter, A-Rod, Manny, Ichiro, Sosa, McGwire, Clemens, Maddux, Rivera. All those famous one-name players, and yet how many of them did you just wince at reading? We didn't like that players used steroids, but there was a time when we liked watching all of them. We even liked watching less charismatic guys who were still great players: Nomar, Carlos Beltran, Carlos Delgado (I did it just for you, Phil), Gary Sheffield and Tom Glavine. They all had something of Pedro's charisma, superhuman talent, sense-of-the-moment and maybe even some huge career milestones or an amazing postseason performance. The list of talented players was long and strong. Today baseball is about defense and pitching, with way more no-hitters to see, but do we pay any more attention? Can we name 5 guys who are playing today who could comfortably fit on either of the prior lists?
But now in the NBA there is some hope. The NBA Wikipedia link above has this section and quote:
Post-Jordan declineHere I want to correct Wikipedia, or at least get it informed and up-to-date. Ratings are trending up and the league is chock full of talent. We expected Kobe and the Lakers to steal their way to another three-peat, but the competition for Best Regular Season Team at various points looked like it could belong to the Mavericks, Celtics and Heat before going to the Bulls. Derek Rose won the MVP, but strong cases were made by others especially Dirk and Dwight Howard, but not including the consensus most talented player in the game. The NBA playoffs this year featured the return of the Knicks as a competitor, a welcome change which was led by Melo and Amare. There were also the great upsets against former champs in the Spurs and Lakers, an arrival to the conversation for Zach Randolph and his young Grizzlies team, a disappointment of sorts for the promise showed by Kevin Durant and the Thunder, and perhaps a last stand from the Celtics. Then there was the Finals, which featured a rematch of two great teams and a budding rivalry between them, the opportunity for redemption for Dirk Nowitzki, the last real hope for Jason Kidd, victory for both legendary never-won-it guys, and the frustration of the most talented Big Three in the game who now rival the Yankees for the biggest villains in sports.
The retirement of Michael Jordan set in motion the decline in NBA ratings which continues today.
The end of this season left me wishing that the NBA season and playoffs would keep running all through the summer, first because I was so entertained and intrigued by this season and second because with the end of the NBA and an NFL/NBA lockout looming, it looked like all that was left was basebell. Baseball, once something that I used to link fondly with thoughts of summer, beer from the bottle, and fresh cut grass, has recently felt more like a chore. In an era of too-many-distractions from message threads on Facebook with college buddies to endless amounts of instant streaming video on Netflix, an NBA game can hold my attention for the whole three-plus hours, but I can barely train myself to sit and watch a half inning of baseball without wanting to reach for my phone or computer to Google something more interesting while I wait for the next pitch.
If I had to buy stock in either MLB or the NBA, based solely on their popularity not than finances sinces the NBA is a total mystery there, I would go for the NBA every time. MLB is not going to get much more popular internationally, but kids all over Asia, Europe, Latin America and even Africa know who the NBA's stars are. We care about sports somewhat because we played on teams when we were younger, in part because we admire the feats of skills and strategy, and in part because we don't have anything better to do sometimes. But mainly what keeps us tuning back in is the characters, teams, and stories that we start to care about. Right now, with basketball I am locked in. I care. But Michael and I recently talked about how we would each like to follow the Mets to make the summer more interesting and we both felt it was hard just to care enough. There just isn't a person, team or story in baseball to really make me care the way that Pedro could. So rest in retirement, Pedro. And rest in peace, baseball.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
What Did College Do For Me?
I
decided to come to BU in the fifth grade when I took a trip to Boston
and fell in love with the city. I don't even think Google was around
back then, but I know when I got home from that trip I did an AOL search
or whatever I used at the time and looked at the BU website. It was
pretty much in my head from that point that BU was going to be where I
went to college. By the time I finished high school I was conscious of
the advice of counselors and others and considered a bunch of schools.
Ultimately, I only applied to BU and the University of Rochester (which
I can't even imagine having gone to). I wanted to come to Boston
because I loved the city, I was following the Red Sox religiously, and I
was excited about taking courses in the Core Curriculum, since I thought it might give me the kind of education that I felt I was missing in my high school.
When I came for Orientation, I remember one of the deans
giving us a short pep talk in which he said we had come there to build
the minds that we would live in for the rest of our lives. My memory often
fails me, particularly with quotes, but that one stands out brilliantly
clearly in my mind. Studying in the Core Curriculum for two years felt like a
continuation of that project that the dean charged us with. My first humanities professor
was a friendly yet wacky man and I learned some interesting things in his class,
particularly about religion. But in my sophomore year, I took an honors
class with a professor who really inspired me and the experience was amazing since it was an opportunity to learn from and interact with a truly brilliant person. Much of what I learned
in that class really did change my brain and my mind forever.
But that only accounts for four classes that I took out of
32 or so. Four of those classes without a doubt helped build the
mind that I wanted to live in for the rest of my life. Plus the four or
so classes I took during the study abroad time in Padova. That
experience more than anything was the most intensive learning experience
of my life: meeting new people, learning a language and culture,
traveling, taking classes in subjects like film and writing that I would
not have tried at BU. That also helped build the mind I wanted to
have.
The rest of my education doesn't feel like it was part of that same project but rather a different parallel goal. I studied econ. and each class felt like it was just
rehashing the same examples and providing a little color and detail to
the picture I got from Intro level classes. In fact, I believe that I've
learned less about economics from BU courses than from following Marginal Revolution and other econ blogs,
which I still check daily. Ironically, I first learned about the blog
from a professor that I had taken a class with. While that deserves recognition, I think the credit is due more to the relative strangers writing their
blogs than it does to the teacher with whom I took two classes.
Today, I'm working as a teacher and this question of
how valuable college was in building the mind that I want to live in
comes up for me because a) I have an effect on my own students and 2) I
have to make a decision on whether to pursue a Master's degree, even when
the Master's program that I started through TFA was a strong reminder
of how so many classes at BU failed to really inspire me or leave me
with some knowledge that I really valued. In the end, I think I'll do
the Master's program but more because it is an important step in a professional career, not
because I don't think I could learn this information elsewhere. I'm
sure there are blogs, sites and books that could teach me how to be
better at my work. In fact, I read many of them already. So the
question now is what to do: just do a degree because it will help me get
ahead or try to carry on the project that the dean charged me with at freshman orientation and keep building the mind that I want to live in. The one
thing I do know about my time at BU, is that it gave me the ability to learn and think for myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)