Lost in the news of Ray Charles posthumously winning 8 Grammys is the fact that Led Zeppelin won a Grammy under the banner of "lifetime achievement award":
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6959970/
Before I go on, I should admit that I'm a huge Zep fan, and consider their first 6 albums (Zep 1-Physical graffiti) among the best albums of all time. That being said, I can't believe that at no point during their reign as THE rock band (which essentially created hard rock as we know it today) did they win a Grammy. Not that I ever thought that the Grammys were indicative of good music, but you would think that at some point between 1969 and 1975 they would have thought that perhaps Zeppelin was worthy of a Grammy for something. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised since it wasn't until Bob Dylan's "Time Out of Mind" album (released in late '97) that he won a Grammy. I happen to think that album is ok, but considering Dylan is credited with writing some of the most influential songs ever, you would have thought he would have won something in the 60s or 70s when he was making history (pick the song or albumn. Certainly out of the following list he should have had one best song: Like a Rolling Stone, Blowin in the Wind, Subterrean Homesick Blues and The Times They Are A Changin).
To me this all goes back to the absolute stupidity of these awards in the first place. I'm going to lump the Academy Awards in with the Grammys which both appear to be trumped-up, self-congratulatory awards aimed at sucking more money out of the public (I don't know enough about the Emmys or Tonys to complain about them, but I'm sure they're no better). My biggest problem with the awards is that they purport to reward the best, but even they recognize it isn't the case. Every year the Academy is righting some wrong from a previous year. An actor/actress/director rarely wins for the actual performance they're nominated for. Russell Crowe won an Oscar more for his work in LA Confidential and The Insider than he did for Gladiator, Renee Zellweger won more for Chicago and Birdgette Jones then Cold Mountain, Nicole Kidman won at least as much for Moulin Rouge then she did for The Hours and I'm sure Scorsese will win best director not because of his work in The Aviator, but for what he's accomplished in his life as a filmmaker. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.
It's also absurd to pick "the best" in something as subjective as film or music. How do you differentiate between Joe Pesci's performance in Goodfellas (which was awesome) and Jack Nicholson's as the Joker in Batman (equally awesome)? The Shawshank Redemption probably would have won best picture had it come out in a weak year (Shakespeare in Love anyone?) but lost in a strong year that included both Pulp Fiction and the winner, Forrest Gump. It becomes even more absurd when studios rush to release films in a couple of cities at the end of the year just so it's eligible for that year's Academy Awards.
If you insist on having some kind of awards show (I guess there isn't anything better to put on TV, especially now that football season is over) make all of them lifetime achievement awards. Every year recognize one actor and actress or musician for outstanding work that they've done over a series of movies/albums. As for best picture/best song/best album, maybe we could take a page out of the American Idol playbook and have a nation vote on which one they think is the best(since the word "best" is subjective by definition, the best anything should be the one that the most people believe is the best).
Monday, February 14, 2005
Thursday, February 10, 2005
At The End of The Day I Go to Sleep
As I was driving up to San Francisco yesterday I remembered something else that really bothers me: people who use buzzwords/phrases that really don't mean anything. There is easily one expression that has become the most over-used and aggravating expression on the planet -- "at the end of the day". If you're unfamiliar with the usage, it's commonly used to emphasize the importance of something. For instance, "At the end of the day we're in the business to make money." Another great one is, "At the end of the day we're going to have to tell the customer that this solution just won't work."
Now my problem isn't just that the phrase addds no additional meaning to whatever was said. That's an issue, but it's not the primary one. I think the primary issue is the way that people hear an expression and decide that they need to use it at naseum to sound important/intelligent. What's truly amazing is that I hear really articulate and intelligent people do this all the time, and all it does is make them sound like everyone else. Going back to the meaning, I don't even understand why that emphasizes anything. Why don't we have an expression like "When you get up in the morning"? That would work too, wouldn't it? Couldn't you say "When you get up in the morning you have to remember you're in this business to make money"? I think I'm going to start that instead so that if it takes hold at least I'll feel like I created the expression.
This leads me to an interesting point. I think it's fascinating how quickly an expression can spread through society. It has a multiplicative affect, infecting anyone that it touches. Think of a word like "proactive". Did you ever hear that 10-15 years ago? Now everyone says it. I don't even understand what "proactive" means. How are you proactive? Isn't the word "active" active enough? The opposite of "active" is "reactive"isn't it? So isn't the prefix "pro" superfluous? I mean, what's the difference between saying:
"We have to proactively engage with the customer to make sure they know this is an issue."
&
"We have to actively engage with the customer to make sure they know this is an issue."
The reason you use the word "active" in this example is to make sure that people know that you don't want to be reactive, but the "pro" prefix is useless. Now it's to the point that if I use the word active, people will actually correct me and tell me that I really mean proactive.
Now my problem isn't just that the phrase addds no additional meaning to whatever was said. That's an issue, but it's not the primary one. I think the primary issue is the way that people hear an expression and decide that they need to use it at naseum to sound important/intelligent. What's truly amazing is that I hear really articulate and intelligent people do this all the time, and all it does is make them sound like everyone else. Going back to the meaning, I don't even understand why that emphasizes anything. Why don't we have an expression like "When you get up in the morning"? That would work too, wouldn't it? Couldn't you say "When you get up in the morning you have to remember you're in this business to make money"? I think I'm going to start that instead so that if it takes hold at least I'll feel like I created the expression.
This leads me to an interesting point. I think it's fascinating how quickly an expression can spread through society. It has a multiplicative affect, infecting anyone that it touches. Think of a word like "proactive". Did you ever hear that 10-15 years ago? Now everyone says it. I don't even understand what "proactive" means. How are you proactive? Isn't the word "active" active enough? The opposite of "active" is "reactive"isn't it? So isn't the prefix "pro" superfluous? I mean, what's the difference between saying:
"We have to proactively engage with the customer to make sure they know this is an issue."
&
"We have to actively engage with the customer to make sure they know this is an issue."
The reason you use the word "active" in this example is to make sure that people know that you don't want to be reactive, but the "pro" prefix is useless. Now it's to the point that if I use the word active, people will actually correct me and tell me that I really mean proactive.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Do You Have to Pick That Up?
I know I said I like to talk about politics and football, but I really thought I had to start off with something that REALLY bothers me. One of my favorite writers (Gregg Easterbrook, check his football stuff out here: http://www.nfl.com/writers/easterbrook) has a running item that he calls "The Decline of Western Civilization". Well, I think today's cell phone usage falls into that category.
Let me ask you this: how many times have you been in the middle of a conversation with someone (in person) and had them say "hold on a sec" to answer a cell phone call? Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem if you need to find out what time to be someplace (or it's actually an emergency) but 99% of the time it's to chat. Why do people give preference to someone who is calling on a cell phone when a live human being is in front of them? Whoever is in person has made a larger commitment to spend time with you then whomever is calling on the phone. Don't they deserve your time more than the person who is calling you? I mildly understand the urge to answer the phone. Anytime an alert message goes out we as humans feel compelled to respond (just like a fire alarm). However I've sat and watched numerous people talk to a friend of theirs on the phone about a whole lot of nothing, while I sit across from them wishing I owned a hand gun.
I'd think that perhaps this problem was localized to me and the fact that I talk a lot, but I've seen it happen to many people. Even my parents, who I love dearly, will interrupt dinner when their cell phone rings. My parents were the first people to get CallerID when I was growing up so that they didn't ever have to answer the phone when we were at dinner (and my Dad stopped answering the phone altogether). They're huge on etiquette of all kinds, and my Dad things of himself as a kindred spirit of Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld and Woody Allen (that is to say that he likes to comment on things that people do that doesn't make sense. I guess it runs in the family). I don't eat that many meals with them anymore now that I live in California, but if their cell phone rings and we happen to be eating together, they'll get up to talk on the phone. It blows my mind.
Now, it also bothers me, when I'm the offending caller, and the person that I call doesn't warn me. I like to practice what I preach, but when I call someone I have no way of knowing what they're doing when they pick up unless they tell me. I expect whoever it is that I've called to alert me that they're in the presence of another human being that they were interacting with prior to the time that they picked up my call. I've talked to people for 10-15 minutes only to find that they'd been ignoring someone the whole time!
Let me ask you this: how many times have you been in the middle of a conversation with someone (in person) and had them say "hold on a sec" to answer a cell phone call? Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem if you need to find out what time to be someplace (or it's actually an emergency) but 99% of the time it's to chat. Why do people give preference to someone who is calling on a cell phone when a live human being is in front of them? Whoever is in person has made a larger commitment to spend time with you then whomever is calling on the phone. Don't they deserve your time more than the person who is calling you? I mildly understand the urge to answer the phone. Anytime an alert message goes out we as humans feel compelled to respond (just like a fire alarm). However I've sat and watched numerous people talk to a friend of theirs on the phone about a whole lot of nothing, while I sit across from them wishing I owned a hand gun.
I'd think that perhaps this problem was localized to me and the fact that I talk a lot, but I've seen it happen to many people. Even my parents, who I love dearly, will interrupt dinner when their cell phone rings. My parents were the first people to get CallerID when I was growing up so that they didn't ever have to answer the phone when we were at dinner (and my Dad stopped answering the phone altogether). They're huge on etiquette of all kinds, and my Dad things of himself as a kindred spirit of Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld and Woody Allen (that is to say that he likes to comment on things that people do that doesn't make sense. I guess it runs in the family). I don't eat that many meals with them anymore now that I live in California, but if their cell phone rings and we happen to be eating together, they'll get up to talk on the phone. It blows my mind.
Now, it also bothers me, when I'm the offending caller, and the person that I call doesn't warn me. I like to practice what I preach, but when I call someone I have no way of knowing what they're doing when they pick up unless they tell me. I expect whoever it is that I've called to alert me that they're in the presence of another human being that they were interacting with prior to the time that they picked up my call. I've talked to people for 10-15 minutes only to find that they'd been ignoring someone the whole time!
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Opening Salvo
So I've been wanting to get on this for a long time, but for whatever reason it wasn't until my trend-setting friend actually emailed me his blog that I realized that I should stop procrastinating. Anyways, various things bother me on a regular basis, and I feel that I should share these thoughts with the world. I'd say the two biggest areas that I have comments are on politics and football, so that's what you'll read about most of the time (should you actually spend anytime reading my thoughts). Other items will make their way in here from time-to-time, but I promise to constantly mock a group or groups on a regular basis.
For my opening attack, I'd like to list groups of people that I have problems with. I'll probably devote future blogs to each:
-Cell phone users who prioritize people on the phone over people who are present
-Right-wing conservatives
-Left-wing liberals
-Over-protective parents
-Sports reporters
-Television/Movie executives
-People who don't understand statistics/economics
-Owners of teams who won't spend money
-Owners of fast food restaurants who charge a dime for a sweet and sour sauce packet
For my opening attack, I'd like to list groups of people that I have problems with. I'll probably devote future blogs to each:
-Cell phone users who prioritize people on the phone over people who are present
-Right-wing conservatives
-Left-wing liberals
-Over-protective parents
-Sports reporters
-Television/Movie executives
-People who don't understand statistics/economics
-Owners of teams who won't spend money
-Owners of fast food restaurants who charge a dime for a sweet and sour sauce packet
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)