The New-and-Improved Same Old Thing

I would like to pose a question to you the reader, cuz maybe you can help me out with something I've been wrestling with lately: Why are we so drawn to new things?

A radio station here in Syracuse just flipped its format. It's now what we in the business call a Classic Hits station; basically, a mix of old Top 40 hits from the 70s and 80s with a couple classic rock or R&B/soul tunes thrown in. Now, I wouldn't ordinarily listen to a station like this, I'm more of an AOR/modern rock kinda guy. Hell, I used to work for a Classic Hits station down in Pennsylvania while I was going to college, I know what to expect from this format, I've heard all these songs before. However, I find myself flipping over to this station, to see what they'll play next, what songs in what order. Why do I do this? Because it's a NEW station. It's something different, thrown in to shake up the often stale mix that is today's radio dial in Syracuse and other markets like it. When you look at it, though, you react as many in the know have, online and elsewhere: it's just a repackaged version of the same old thing. You could get the same mix of songs if you flipped from an oldies station to a classic rock station to a lite station. Nothing really different about it, but we're drawn to it, we want to talk about it. Why? Because it's NEW!

It reminds me of something my dad once said, a flippant comment directed at the TV after seeing an ad for a new three-door coupe. He said, "If it's not selling, just put another door on it." Very true, indeed, cuz you know there were a lot of people who looked at that and said, "THREE DOORS? WOW!!!" Truth is, it's the same damn car, only with another door on it. And what my dad said eventually did come to pass some time later; sales of that car must have slacked off, because lo and behold, introducing the new FOUR-door coupe. Again, everyone gets excited, but again, it's the same car, only with an extra door.

The reason I don't make such a big deal out of such developments is that fact that for me, it's all about the practicality. If it's a car, I don't care how many doors it once had or has now, does it run? Will it get me from Point A to Point B (provided I don't crash the thing, but that's another column)? Of course, it's not like I can afford a brand-new car, maybe that has something to do with it. Also, once you get older and you've seen enough trends/fads/etc. fall by the wayside, you acquire some kind of perspective on all of this. New Beetles are cool (damn, I want one), but they're based on old Beetles. PT Cruisers look like Model A Fords from the 30s, what's up with the big hoo-ha over them? Gore and Bush are two new names in the presidential race, but they're no different than candidates past (for the record, I voted for McCain in the primary).

Of course, you can only get away with new editions of old stuff for so long. Consider every time some classic rock act that hasn't had a hit song since the 70s is putting on a concert, and they utter the phrase, "...and now something off our NEW album...," a line guaranteed to turn off your audience every time. And, there are the times when it just gets frustrating; for example, how my Mets seem to have a new team every year, and they STILL can't beat the Braves. So, my point of all this is that I wonder how people can get all excited about new things when most times, it's just something we've always had, just with a new name/price/taste/function/doo-hickey that it does. Are we that easily bored? Are we just that stupid? OK, strike that question, we all probably know the answer to that one.

How about something completely original, something nobody's ever heard of and it will instantly become part of the pop culture landscape? How about a new spin on an old product that makes it a completely new product, rather than the old product with a new label? Those things do happen, but more often than not, they become the things we poke fun at years later. I'm referring to the Edsel, New Coke, Crystal Clear Pepsi, the Turbo-Grafx 16. I drank New Coke; hell, I LIKED New Coke, I drank Crystal Clear Pepsi, I played the Turbo-Grafx 16. Why? Cuz they were NEW. But we are a fickle people; as drawn as we are to original things, we all eventually settle for same-old, same-old. When's the last time you saw a hula hoop, a pet rock, or even a Tamagotchi? Those have been sent to the dustbin of history. How long ago were Tamagotchis popular? Three years ago? Geez, makes me want to pull out an old Alice In Chains CD and reminisce about that far-gone decade of the 1990s. I'd love to hear any examples of truly original and creative things than are actually still around. And stuff like computers and the Internet don't count, because those didn't just appear overnight, they were the product of decades of improvement and evolution (unless, of course, you actually BELIEVE that Al Gore invented the Internet).

And while we're on the subject of somebody doing something radical and creative, would it kill somebody at one of the local radio stations to run their commericals sometime other than 20, 35, and 50 after the hour? I can't stand flipping around the dial at those times and getting commericals on EVERY SINGLE STATION!!! Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

Being a Fan is Going to Kill Me

Ah, September. Great time to be a sports fan, you have baseball pennant races, football is starting, and there's some thing called the Olympics going on, but that's kinda killed by the fact that people like me are giving you the results over the radio before you see the events on TV (sorry, it's my job). It is a great feeling to be pumped up over seeing you favorite teams, high school, college, or pro taking the field game after game. It is also the closest thing I can think of to walking on hot coals while being prodded by flaming pokers.

Let me take you inside a typical weekend for this sports nut. First of all, I'm reeling already from watching my Mets blow yet another September game, to the Phillies of all people, on Thursday night, so this weekend isn't off to a good start. Friday night after I finish my professional duties, I head out to my high school alma mater, West Genesee High School, to watch my Wildcats play Fayetteville-Manlius. On this night, once again, we are treated to another example of why if you are a fan of West Genesee football, you must also be a fan of sado-masochism. These guys play with heart, intensity, spirit, something they didn't have in past years. Unfortunately, something they don't have this year is a win. What they have done is made you believe in them right up until the moment something goes wrong and they lose the game. So far this year, they've had the lights go out at halftime of the first game, lost the second game on a blocked extra point, lost the third game when they fumbled the ball on the way into the end zone, and last Friday was another one of those games. The offense, which had scored fewer points in three games than years in my age, finally put it together. Our quarterback looked great, throwing the ball for big gains. We had come from down 12-0 to take a 15-12 lead in the fourth quarter. At last, we are off the schneid!!!

And that's when F-M returned the ensuing kickoff for a touchdown and won the game, 19-15.

OK, I am not bashing my team. If any West Genny fans or players are reading this and think I am taking this opportunity to complain about this team and that I want to tell the world how bad I think the team is, you are sorely mistaken. The fact that I am very devoted to my team is pretty obvious, have you seen the West Genesee football page? Nobody does that amount of research so that they can go on about how this year's team isn't getting it done. I had to sit behind a bunch of parents who were blaming it all on the coaches, typical parents who believe that since the team is 0-4, even though with a few different bounces they could be 4-0, that the coach must go. The best players are on the bench, they claim; that probably includes THEIR kids, I'll bet. It made me sick, even sicker than the game was making me. I think some of the readers can sympathize, though; Camillus, New York can easily be Anytown, USA and everyone remembers cheering on their old high school teams. Take heart, guys, you are by far the best 0-4 team around, even if just thinking back to the events of the other night has me on the verge of an aneurysm.

The moral is you gotta stick by your team, through thick and thin and all that. In my time of being a sports fan, I've seen the Jets go 3-13 and 1-15, I've seen Vince Coleman throw firecrackers at little kids, seen the Mets become the butt of every late night comedian's jokes, seen one strike, three lockouts, four Bills Super Bowl losses, an 0-8 West Genny team that almost forfeited the season halfway through, and worst of all, I lived through two and a half years of Greg McMichael blowing games out of the Mets bullpen. After all that, I think I can safely say that I love my teams and will always stick by them. OK, I don't like the Knicks anymore, but that's because I no longer like the NBA in general.

That said, weekend's not off to a good start. Saturday doesn't get much better, as I wake up from a well-earned nap (heartache takes a lot out of you, after all) just in time to see my Syracuse Orangemen getting throttled by East Carolina. This is not a good time to be a fan of SU, actually I should say THAT SU, as by checking the web, I find out that MY SU, as in Susquehanna, the one I went to college at, has come from behind to beat Dickinson, 24-13 and they're 3-0. That, along with listening to three hours of Syracuse fans bitching and moaning about the coaching on the radio, makes the earlier experiences a little easier to take. I want to say to my friends at Syracuse, "My SU can beat up your SU, nyah-nyah!" The sad thing is I could be right.

Sunday arrives, and with it, the much-ballyhooed Jets-Bucs game, the highlight of the weekend, Keyshawn Bowl I if you will. Once again, I gotta watch as one of my teams is headed down the road to imminent failure. Vinny Testaverde gets picked three times in what seems like about ten minutes, leading me to throw out, among other terms that cannot be repeated here, a favorite nickname of mine for him, "Interceptaverde". I'm getting set to eat major crow for going on and on all week about how Keyshawn should just shut his mouth, how we weren't going to let him beat us and all that. By the way, a brief aside: you ever notice how whenever your team does something good, it's "we", and when something goes wrong, it's "they"?

Anyhoo, in a final act of redemption that somehow seems to symbolize the whole rollercoaster experience of being a fan, the Jets score two touchdowns in just over a minute, the last one a Curtis Martin halfback option pass to the so-called "flashlight", Wayne Chrebet. The Bucs fumble twice, the Jets win the game, they're 4-0 for the first time ever, and I am stunned and needless to say, driving the neighbors in my apartment building nuts with my yelling and carrying on about how Keyshawn can go... well, you can just fill in the blank there.

This of course does not mean the cycle of pain, anxiety, frustration, rage, and outright joy will not continue. Every sports fan knows that you have to take the good with the bad, and both will always happen, usually when you least expect it. That said, West Genny's gotta go to RFA on Friday, Syracuse will play BYU Saturday night, Susquehanna will host Wilkes, the Mets will take on the Braves three more times at Shea, and I'll agonize and rejoice and come this close to a heart attack yet again.

Then again, the Jets DO have the week off. Maybe I can avoid being on the verge of a coronary for ONE week anyway.

It's Everyone's Fault Except Mine

I'm a producer in a radio station, and at my job, I get a lot of complaint calls. The ones that I'll never understand are from the people who think I can do something about what they're hearing. I can see these people now: "This guy on the radio offends me! If I call the radio station, maybe they'll immediately take him off the air." They make the assumption that without them, my station is nothing, and so if they complain and complain, change will be made. Not that they would ever consider actually changing the station; in this staring match between station and listener, they believe that the station will flinch first, and they won't change the station because they never have before, therefore it's up to the station to change.

I'm going to introduce these people to a concept they may have never heard of, as John Popper of Blues Traveler once said, "a very sound and user-friendly idea that may finally bring that pesky mountain to Mohammed." It's called "if you don't like it, there are two knobs on your radio; one turns it off, and the other changes the station." If more people actually did that, if they actually decided to exercise some control over what they or their children listened to or watched rather than try to deny the material for its intended audience, then maybe we wouldn't have this battle between the government and Hollywood right now.

For those of you who don't know, Vice-President Gore went after Hollywood this week, accusing them of trying to promote R-rated movies to underage audiences. Now if that isn't the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Like the promotional people at the studios get together and say amongst themselves, "Hmmm, we've got a movie full of graphic violence, nudity, steamy sexual situations and lots of profanity. How can we get kids to sneak in and see it?" Does that not sound absolutely ridiculous? For one thing, finding ways to get kids to sneak in and see your movie is by definition trying to get people to do something illegal, which is more than illegal, it's just plain immoral. For another thing, if they're trying to get the kids to make their parents take them to these films, that may as well be on the same level. What's more, if the parents actually go along with it, especially without checking out what's in the film, then they're not doing their jobs as parents.

This happens every few years, not coincidentally every time there's a presidential election. In 1992, George Bush (President Bush, I mean, not Junior) went after Ice-T's song "Cop Killer". In 1996, Bob Dole demanded that Hollywood cleaned its act up. Now, it's Gore's turn. I would consider this pretty ironic, seeing as how less than a month ago, his party was throwing its big to-do in LA and there were Hollywood types running around all over the place. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you, but I digress.

Another reason this whole debate is laughable is that people are trying to link violent content in movies and on TV to crime at a time when crime rates are dropping, and they're trying to link erotic images and content to teen sex at a time when teen pregnancy rates are dropping. Kinda like trying to justify that something costs too much when it's 50% off. Not that crime and teenage pregnancy are things to just pooh-pooh away and even when those rates are down, a rate of zero is what we would ultimately like to see. However, at a time when it would seem that by the numbers, our society is cleaning up its act, people are out there looking for more people to blame and not hailing whatever forces have led to the decline in those numbers.

The reason why the heat is being turned up in my opinion is that while the violent crime rates are dropping, there is more media coverage of the crimes that do happen. If crime gets an increased amount of air time, then there is the appearance that there is more crime. Therefore, people are looking for answers as to why this stuff is happening, and the unfortunate thing is they never look at themselves. When young people are committing crimes, bringing weapons to school and doing God knows what else, their parents don't look at themselves and wonder if they're doing something wrong or worse yet, not doing anything at all. Instead, they assume it must be what the kids are watching or the music they are listening to. Parents have the power to affect those aspects of their kids lives. Now, I don't know the reasons why they don't exercise those powers. They may feel like their parents were too hard on them, and so they want to be "friends" with their kids. There are some cases where the parents aren't around to watch their kids, and I totally understand that, they need to make the money necessary to raise their kids. I had that a lot, too, when I was a kid, my mom was at work or schlepping my sister around to dance lessons. However, my mom had the foresight to always make sure I had a babysitter. I would highly recommend doing just that, better to have SOMEBODY watching the kids when you're not there than nobody at all, and it shouldn't cost that much to hire someone.

Therefore, memo to Gore and all of the others who believe that society's ills are the fault of Hollywood, the recording industry, all of us in radio, etc: Maybe it's time you all looked at yourself and how you raise your children. It doesn't take very long, and we're all better for it. Gore raised two daughters who are involved and active in many things, including their dad's campaign. I won't be voting for him in November, but he still is an example of a good parent. Maybe then he should be teaching you all to be better parents rather than covering for the bad ones by blaming anyone other than them.

And to all of you who are calling in to complain about whatever you just heard on the station I work for, may I sum up my response in the immortal words of Syracuse University chancellor Kenneth Shaw:

"GET A LIFE!!!"

Napster Bad (a.k.a. Show Me the Money)

So I'm watching the MTV Video Music Awards, as many of you probably are as I'm writing this. My reason is pretty much to root for the forces of good music (rock, rap, hip-hop and the like) and against the forces of bad music (*N SYNC, etc.). However, when I saw the little "comedy sketch" our boy Mr. Lars Ulrich dreamed up for his anti-Napster campaign, I saw red, and when I get mad as you all well know by now, I head straight for the keyboard. Oh yeah, BRILLIANT concept, Lars; getting us to think that sharing music should be just like sharing any of your other possessions. Just trot one half of our disappointing pair of hosts for the evening (sorry, Wayanses, it's just not working out, BRING BACK CHRIS ROCK NEXT YEAR!!!) and then we think it's part of the show, like MTV wants us to stop "stealing" music from these poor souls that are going to go hungry if we burn a couple of CDs.

OK, sarcasm's over, now it's time for the venom. Hate to break this to you, Mr. Ulrich, if I may call you that, but you are comparing apples to oranges. I don't get paid millions of dollars for having a good computer, nor do I get to sign a contract and travel all over the world and have all the alcohol and women I want because I have stuff in my apartment people like and want for themselves. The fact is your band makes music millions of people love and you get LOTS and LOTS of money for it. Oh, don't bother hiding behind your whole "this isn't about us, it's the young up and coming bands" defense. If you haven't noticed, those young up and coming bands are the ones hawking their music via sites like MP3.com, who thanks to your willing accomplices in the recording industry, just had to fork over an unreal and outrageous $25,000 per CD they claim was "stolen" due to the MP3 format. That's $25,000, or to put it in more real terms, about twice the cost of a CD if you buy it in a record store. A slight exaggeration perhaps (not by much, though), but the fact is CD prices are too high and so if you want to make a difference, Lars, you really should be getting on the backs of the record companies to have them drop the prices a tad and then all those college students could actually afford the CDs and not go on Napster and download them.

Incidentally, the judge who made that ruling might want to actually LOOK at the law instead of making up his own. According to copyright law, if you own the CD and make MP3 copies of the tracks and keep them on your computer, that is perfectly legal, because in buying the CD you own the rights to the tracks on that CD. So, if you wish to store them on, say, MyMP3.com, that is legal according to copyright law. Remember ROMs, the video game lookalikes that you had on your computer? If you owned the game in its Nintendo, Sega, etc. format, you were allowed to download the ROM of that game. If I remember it right, though, the FBI bullied every last ROM site out of business, because the video game makers feared exactly what the record industry fears now. Figures.

Back to Napster. Now I've read the sob stories from the record store owners who claim they're going out of business because of Napster. Let's face it, it's a convenient target. If I'm a record store owner and I see my sales slipping, I can pin it on Napster and everyone will feel sorry for me and join the fight to shut Napster down. However, Napster isn't putting anyone out of business. The more likely culprit is the online music stores, like Amazon and CDNow. I will admit that I have bought a ton more CDs online than in the actual stores. Only rarely do I set foot in a music store, due to the fact that I can usually save money if I buy a CD online. If your choice is $18.99 in a record store or $12.99 plus a couple bucks shipping and handling online, which are you going to choose? Oh by the way, CD sales are still climbing, but you wouldn't know that if you listened to Lars.

He also doesn't want you to see the polls that say that the majority of Napster users buy more CDs after using Napster. For me, the determining factor in buying a new CD is if I hear three songs I consider good. Before, this would take months as I had to wait for three singles to come out before I could make a decision or I would have to sneak a listen to someone else's copy. Of course, if Pearl Jam or Blues Traveler or some other band I'm big on has a new CD, I'll buy it the first day it's out; hence, my rare trips to the record stores. Now, I can download a couple tracks online, take a listen and make a decision. Actually, I don't use Napster for that purpose, but if I did I would. Actually, that's what I like about the online music stores that offer samples of the songs. I'll bet Lars probably goes after them next, somehow trying to make us believe that listening to 30-second samples takes food out of his kids' mouths.

So what do I use Napster for? Honestly, and Lars and his cronies won't like this, but: I use it to download songs from artists that I only like one or two songs from, for the purpose of making mix CDs. You know, like the old days, when you taped songs off the radio to make mix tapes. I'll bet you did this when you were a kid, Lars. Bet you didn't know this, but that's technically copyright infringement! The record companies tried to make us believe for the longest time that home taping would destroy the industry, that people wouldn't buy albums anymore if they could just dub off copies at home. Well, we all know that didn't happen. I get the one or two songs I like and if someday I decide to buy the CD and hear the rest of the tracks, that's cool too. There are plenty of other people in the here and now who like the artist enough to buy the whole CD or have by the hundreds of thousands in the past.

Yeah, there are a lot of people who are out to steal whole albums of songs, sometimes even before they are released, through avenues like Napster. Those yay-hoos are the ones abusing the privilege. I personally would never do that; if I wanted the whole CD, I would do the right thing and shell out the damn money for it. I like to think I'm in the majority in regard to that, and that these yay-hoos are few and far between. Those who grab the whole CD just so they can save a few bucks are 1) cheap and 2) probably not the type of people you would trust in the first place. I'm talking about someone who downloads whole CDs and then tries to steal cable or something. When stuff like that happens, of course musicians will get riled up and they have every right too. What they shouldn't be doing is going after all of us who aren't about that. If you are an artist, like Madonna, whose songs are winding up on Napster before they get to the stores, then you go after whoever did it and make them pay. I don't have a problem with small-scale legal manuevering, but to go after everyone is ludicrous. Now, it's like some sort of moral crusade.

Whatever happened to the old credo, "I just want to share my music with the world"? Now, apparently it's "The world doesn't get to hear my music until they pay me." On a night when a lot of jokes fell flat, Lars, your attempt at humor may have been the worst of them all. Of course, if you guys win this whole Napster case, you'll continue to laugh all the way to the bank. If that is to happen, I have a feeling that those of us who you are pointlessly going after will make sure we wind up ultimately having the last laugh. Bank on it (pun intended).

Why? Cuz I Feel Like It

So the debate these days is over more government vs. less government, more laws vs. fewer laws. Gun advocates scream that there are too many laws and not enough enforcement. Those on the other side say that there isn't enough enforcement, therefore, more laws are required. The fact of the matter is that sometimes it's not about whether or not a law or rule is being enforced, it's WHY said rule is enforced.

Now, I'll bet your response would be something along the lines of "Why is it enforced? Well, because it's the law!" Not true in some cases, and that brings me to an example this week of something that happened to a friend of mine that can only be described as what I call "selective enforcement". It's kind of like selective hearing, which is when you only hear what you want to hear; in this case, selective enforcement is enforcing a rule only when it will benefit you. Not quite snitching, because when you snitch on someone, you're not the one enforcing the rule. Selective enforcement is only reserved for those in positions of power, and this would definitely fall under the category of "power corrupts".

The fall semester is currently underway at Onondaga Community College, a public school falling under the umbrella of the State University of New York. For several years, a collection of people from all kinds of religious, ethnic, and sexual backgrounds have gathered at OCC in what we have affectionately termed "The Group". Not all of them were students at the time, but former students and alumni who had met up with the Group in their student days. Although we have stirred up our share of trouble over the years (e.g. running underwear and people up flagpoles, and some things with certain holy books that shall not be discussed here), we have never been more than merry pranksters and ambassadors for the school. When I went to OCC, we had a Dean of Students who let us do our thing; hell, she loved us. Through a ridiculous decision to downsize by a now-former president, her position was eliminated. Then, when the position was re-created, a Dean was put in place who now apparently sees us as a threat to campus security.

Which brings me to what happened earlier this week and my example of "selective enforcement". My friend Rhino, who is practically the Group Patriarch, Leader, and Mentor, was hanging out with the Group in our usual haunt, the OCC cafeteria. Also there besides the student members were two other former OCC students; I was not there at the time but I arrived after the incident in question. The Dean was in the food line and upon noticing that Rhino was present, she walked up to him and told him to leave. Upon careful examination of the OCC student handbook, it is now apparently against college rules for anyone who is not a student to be on the campus. The thing that strikes me is that there were three non-students at this table. She went after one, and it was the one who we consider our leader. She did not ask whether or not the others at the table were students or not, and during the 90 minutes I was there later, I was not stopped and checked for ID.

Perhaps this may be because I am not what you would call a troublemaker; not that Rhino is either, but given the Group's history, there may be a stigma attached that wasn't there under the previous Dean. it may just be that it's easier to run a school when things that annoy you are not there. That, however, is no reason to create a rule designed to get rid of things that annoy you. Hell, if I were the Dean at OCC, I'd create a rule that says the hill the school is on must be leveled so we don't have to drive up those steep hills to get there. I'd create a rule that says it can't snow during the winter anymore. I'd create a rule that calls for a 15-minute time limit on the arcade games, because isn't it always the case that when you want to play your favorite game, there's always someone there...

OK, I'm exaggerating and getting off topic (I do that sometimes, just stay with me, folks). The point is if you make a rule or a law, enforce it on everyone. Now while this in theory would lead to me getting kicked off the OCC campus and perhaps the death of the Group in general, what I'm saying is it would be much easier to leave well enough alone and not create a rule designed solely to kick ONE PERSON off campus. Hell, let's just call it the Rhino Rule. If the Dean does not try to remove another person from the campus for the rest of the year, I would not be surprised at all.

The basis for the rule is that technically, Rhino and other non-students are loitering. OK, be honest with me folks: how often do loitering laws get enforced? Try next to never, unless it's a mall and the rent-a-cop on duty has to hit his quota or just needs to feel important (again, power corrupts). Seeing as how the security "force" at OCC is a similar situation, maybe the Dean just gave the rent-a-cops there a reason to stop random people on campus and ask to see their student IDs. In both examples, it's stupid. How about actually trying to stop real crimes and disruptions on the campus rather than just stopping that which pisses the Dean off?

All I have to say is that when I go back to Susquehanna to see friends who are still there, the faculty welcomes me and asks how I've been and what I'm doing these days. When I go back to OCC, I face the possibility that I could be tossed off campus simply for BEING THERE. I guess creating a Homecoming weekend at OCC is out of the question. Any alumni who showed up would be thrown out.

In closing, I believe there does need to be more and rigorous enforcement of rules and laws that prevent problems. You want to keep a gun out of the hands of a criminal, go for it. You want to prosecute someone making unwanted sexual advances, by all means. You want to keep smuggled items off the black market, great. However, there is no reason at all to prevent a person from choosing to spend his time with friends on a college campus when he is not causing trouble for anyone simply because YOU have a problem with his very presence. OK, I shall get off my political/idealistic soapbox for now. Next week, probably, some inane rant about why I can't stand Pokemon or something like that...