"...60 Plus Years Of Setting Insanely Unreasonble Expectations On The Shoulders Of Women Is About To Come Roaring Around Like Katrina Hitting Pompei..."

 

hey, guys….

I’ve stumbled across a couple of the trailers for the forthcoming movie version of “Fifty Shades of Grey” as well as the first snap, crackle and pop of female posts on FB regarding it…while I don’t profess to be fluent, I have, in fifty plus years of experience, begun somewhat proficient in, at least, speaking female so, by way of doin you boys a solid, here‘s my 8 step plan to pre-emptively prepare yourself for what’s coming (and no, the puns have not begun yet).

 

1.   Read as much as you can stand of, at least, three or four of the various and sundry novels written by such writers as Danielle Steel, Nicholas Sparks, et al.....this will give you a foundational understanding of the concept of romance and/or seduction that doesn't always necessarily, automatically and instantly get you laid.

2. Watch as much as you can handle of any Merchant Ivory produced movie (Remains of the Day, et al)...here, you will receive, at least, a rudimentary lesson in understanding confusing and indecipherable phrases like "secrets of the heart", "unrequited love", "sacrifice for my beloved" as well as the soon to be necessary "a feverish dance", "lips to skin like cool ice on a summer day" and "backs that arch without breaking, fingers that intertwine without imprisoning".

3. Buy an inexpensive dictionary, highlight, read and then re-read the definitions of the following words until you can recite their meaning from memory.

   A. sensual

   B. erotic

   C. passion

   D. foreplay

   E. caress

   F. linger

   G. stroking (not you...her)

   H. pulsating

    I. urgent

   J. climax (not Klymax, that was a band)

   K. desire

   L. aching

   M. simultaneous

   N. unselfishly

repeatedly re-read, in particular...A, B, C, E, F, G, K and most importantly N.

   4. Do a "cleanse" and avoid any hip hop music of any kind. This will at least give you a running chance of understanding that the way to a woman's heart, even her soul, is through her eyes and not her va jay jay.

   5. Resolve never to be heard saying the term "va jay jay" out loud.

   6. As Valentine's Day (and the movie premiere) draw near, do a comprehensive refresher of all the steps listed thus far.

   7. No more than two days before the movie premiere, suck it up and read as much as your DNA will allow you of the actual book. Worst case, you'll decide that you actually can live without sex with a woman ever again as there is simply no way on God's green Earth that you could possible measure up. Best case, you'll have some small idea of what you're going to be up against for pretty much the rest of the year (your life).

   8. Starting February 14....take your lady to dinner, offer to sit with her through "The Notebook" at home on the couch while you cuddle and suggest, no, insist, that it would be great fun to spend the coming weekend shoe shopping because once this Grey matter goes mainstream, the chance of your scoring without, at least, those incentives are significantly less that the chances of Tampa Bay scoring between now and the playoffs.

BONUS TIP: in the event of a total failure to either impress or, at best, distract her from this possibly fatal blow to our manhoods (yeah, we're pretty much knee deep into the pun thing, now), simply return to the step list, choose step #3, Definition "G", reverse and re-read the words found in the parenthesis.

Repeat every 12 hours, as needed......

Good luck, my friends...

 

 

 

 

"...It's Only My Opinion, But Here's What Your Opinion Should Be..."

Two kinds of people in the world.

Or so we've been told.




(by Dan Singer, American Journalism Review)

Nate Patrin’s career trajectory in music journalism was once the norm.

Patrin grew up reading Spin and Rolling Stone in the 1990s and wrote music reviews for his high school newspaper. He began contributing to the Minneapolis alt-weekly City Pages in 1999, and from there he moved up to the big leagues, freelancing for Spin and Blender.

“It was the traditional path,” Patrin said.

Between then and now, Blender folded in 2009 and Rolling Stone physically shrank its print magazine. In September, Spin Media ended the print edition of Vibe, and Spin, which became an online-only publication in 2012, had its fourth editor-in-chief in two years, Craig Marks, step down.

As the entire media industry has struggled to adapt to demands of the digital age and turn a profit, music publications in particular are facing a slew of unique challenges that have redefined their roles and responsibilities.

Patrin, who currently freelances for Pitchfork and several other outlets, is one of many writers who were drawn to music journalism’s authoritative voices and engaging stories, only to find themselves riding out the profession’s growing pains as it reshapes for the future.

“It can get discouraging, feeling like options for diehard music enthusiasts could be narrowing,” Patrin said.

One of the biggest shifts in digital-era music journalism is the changing role of the music critic.

“I feel like professional music criticism is almost a thing of the past,” said Rolling Stone contributing editor Chris Weingarten, who has been vocal about the topic in recent years and calls himself the “Last Rock Critic Standing” in his Twitter bio. He noted that there are “limitless” opportunities to write about music online for free or next-to-nothing, but professional critics are losing the relevancy they once had.

“A critic’s voice is now someone who’s trying to speak articulately in the midst of noise,” Weingarten said.

Album leaks and streaming services like Spotify have democratized the public’s access to music, Weingarten said, and this diminishes the immediacy and impact of reviews written by professionals.

“By the time any of those reviews hit, you’ve heard it. You’ve made up your mind,” Weingarten said. “The whole idea of sitting down and reading eight grafs about it after all that? It’s almost like, ‘Yeah, I’ve moved on.’”

This traditional “consumer guide” approach to music journalism, as Poynter media reporter and former Spin critic Andrew Beaujon puts it, has given way to a more esoteric style of criticism that conveys “what it’s like to experience certain kinds of music.”

“I really enjoy that kind of writing,” Beaujon said, “but there just aren’t that many publications willing to pay for it.”

In addition to criticism, music news has been changed by the social web. Similar to other forms of niche journalism, the music news cycle has rapidly accelerated, and coverage is now driven by click-based metrics that determine a music publication’s value to advertisers, according to Weingarten and fellow music critic Maura Johnston.

Johnston, who has written about music for Rolling Stone, The Village Voice and other publications, believes that the pressure to increase web traffic causes major music publications to churn out sensationalist outrage pieces and “celebrity coverage” of popular artists, a development she compared to “when your bagel shop starts selling frozen yogurt.”

“With diminished resources, what happens is the stuff that’s known to make money gets all of the resources and the time,” Johnston said.

Johnston said she personally struggles with this trend in content creation because her interest in writing about new, unhyped artists is less profitable for publications compared to pieces covering mainstays who are “guaranteed clicks.”

When Johnston wrote for The Village Voice and the pop music website Idolator, “the things that were like ‘Hey, this is a cool band…’ would never get as much traffic as a list of something or [a piece] pointing out something is bad,” she said.

Johnston also attributes this shift in coverage to the way readers use social media to curate content from a number of different sources, making it harder for music publications to target a consistent audience they can sell to advertisers. Safe, predictable topics receive more attention as a result of this uncertainty, she said.

Weingarten doesn’t think most music writers are passionate about doing sensationalist music news coverage, but he acknowledges that, at least for the time being, it is necessary in order for music publications to survive in a click-based economy.

If music publications eventually find a new way to quantify their worth that doesn’t involve click-based metrics, he said, “then you could start seeing sensationalist coverage go away.”

One of the most successful music publications of the digital era is Pitchfork Media, a Chicago-based online magazine.

Pitchfork Media, commonly referred to as Pitchfork, was launched in 1995 by Ryan Schreiber, who was a 19-year-old record store employee at the time. The publication initially gained a following for its vigorous coverage of indie music, but as it has matured it has become a one-stop shop for coverage of both up-and-coming artists and well-known indie and pop veterans. Pitchfork has expanded its brand considerably over the past decade by curating its own music festivals, launching the print quarterly, The Pitchfork Review, creating a film site called The Dissolve and licensing video content.

Matt Frampton, Pitchfork Media’s vice president of sales, said that despite being “born online,” Pitchfork has found success using a fairly traditional publishing model.

“Our goal is [to] make really great content that people want to read,” Frampton said. “When people want to read great content, that means you have a really interesting audience that advertisers want to reach.”

Pitchfork’s primary source of revenue is advertising, and its expected revenue growth is “very healthy,” Frampton said, ranging from 25-to-40 percent each year. Frampton said Pitchfork’s website receives about 6.2 million unique visitors and 40 million page views each month.

According to comScore, a web analytics firm, Pitchfork received 2.47 million unique visitors in August, outperforming Spin and Vibe but falling short of Rolling Stone’s 11 million unique visitors.
Pitchfork news editor Amy Phillips credits Pitchfork’s “strong opinions” and constant stream of news coverage with helping the publication build such a prominent and dedicated following.
Phillips said Pitchfork doesn’t target users with short attention spans, instead publishing lengthy reviews, features and documentaries. Aside from its rapid-fire news coverage, she said, the site is “definitely for people who want to sit and take a deep dive in things.”

A freelancer for Pitchfork since 2007, Patrin said the publication’s album review schedule — typically 25 reviews are published each week — provides him with opportunities to consistently receive assignments and cover more eclectic releases that might have “fallen through the cracks” at a print magazine.

Pitchfork, he said, has become “what publications like the Village Voice used to be in terms of letting writers go deep without feeling pressured to talk down to readers.”

While the social web has, in many ways, turned the notion of professional music journalism on its head, the industry is not without its optimists during this transitional period.

One of them is J. Edward Keyes, editor-in-chief of the digital music store eMusic, as well as the recently-launched music website Wondering Sound.

Wondering Sound, which spun off of eMusic’s editorial wing, went live in March. Keyes said the site is dedicated to publishing longform music writing that covers a variety of genres and topics.

Keyes said Wondering Sound’s emergence is a reaction of sorts to the demise of consumer guide music criticism.

“I think the future for music writers is doing really considered pieces that engage with the work in a long format,” Keyes said. “The stuff that gets me most excited is when a writer goes 2,000 words on something and really brings up interesting, provocative points about how the album fits into the broader culture.”

Keyes said he was able to publish high-quality content on the site from the start by calling upon a large base of writers who had previously contributed editorial content to eMusic. Wondering Sound’s website lists over 200 freelance contributors, including Johnston and Patrin.

In addition, Keyes said Wondering Sound is open to publishing and nurturing talented young writers, and it pays, too.

Wondering Sound will soon begin generating ad revenue, and Keyes hopes the website will become a thriving outlet for thoughtful, enthusiastic music journalism.

“In-depth reporting and being a part of creating a public conversation is important, and I would hate to think that there are going to be fewer outlets or opportunities for that,” Keyes said. “That’s part of our mission — to keep those doors open and let people bring us ideas.”

Patrin recently ended a part-time job maintaining the concert calendar at City Pages, and he is now a full-time freelancer.

With more than a decade of professional music journalism experience behind him, Patrin believes he will be able to stay financially self-sufficient as a music and pop culture writer. Still, the challenges of full-time freelancing are not lost on him.

“Cranking out assignments has to become your full-time job,” he said. “Pitching every day, reaching out to friends of friends of friends, and reaching outside my usual subject matter has become a must.”
Patrin said he tries to keep traditional “9-to-5” work hours as a freelancer, but he does his best to remain flexible in order to accommodate editorial revisions and short-notice opportunities. Patrin remains passionate about music writing after all these years, and he would rather spend nights and weekends on the job than pursue any other line of work.

“It is the kind of thing you really have to be seriously comfortable with for it to work, but I’ve been doing this long enough that I’m OK with working through pressure,” he said. “Better too much work than too little.”





There was a time, on the much younger end of my oft misspent youth, that I found myself reading (noun: a pre-internet method of gleaning information, insight and even, wisdom; most often found in the form of newspapers, magazines and "books" {noun: a collection of hard covered pages often filled with information, insight and, even, wisdom}) the work of critics.

When it came to music, there was Griel Marcus and Robert Christgau and, of course, Lester Bangs among a few, select others

For movie musings, there was Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert and, for laughs, Rex Reed and assorted ilk, again among a few, select others.

Memory serves, it didn't take me very long to discover that my own reading of these folks had increasingly more to do with the style of their writing, their humor, or lack of, their prose, their way with words and increasingly less to do with their opinions, per se.

Because it didn't take me very long to discover that their opinions were not even close to anything resembling gospel and were, in fact, only different from mine in a couple of respects.

First, actual content, because it was six, five and pick em that our respective opinions would line up on parallel tracks.

And they were getting paid to offer their opinions whereas I was getting only the satisfaction of offering my own to whoever was willing to have my opinions offered.

Most often, patient friends and/or girlfriends, at least during the infatuate phase of the relationship.

I came, very quickly and very young, to the place where I realized that, despite misconceptions previously acquired, "critic" was not necessarily synonymous with "expert".

Or "insightful" or "educational".....

Or even "worth a read".

Because the term "expertise", at least when it is applied to the arts, for our purposes here, music, can too easily be misapplied, music, as with all other arts, being a sub (not ob) jective creation.

And I'll grant you that it could very easily be because I was full of piss, vinegar and a ready two cents of my own on just about every subject there was to be subjected to very quickly and very young in my life, but, regardless of my own potentially megalomaniacal proclivities, the hard to refute fact of the matter that, as the tacky, but on target, old saying goes.....

Opinions are like assholes and elbows...everybody's got em'.

None of this is intended to denigrate the writings of the aforementioned folks who made (or make) their living offering up their opines on any given piece of music and/or singer/performer performing it at any given time.

Some of my best friends are critics.

And I've been known to crank out a little critique every now and then my own self when the mood was right, the material was the muse....and somebody offered to throw me a few bucks in return for the rhetoric.

Which, of course, makes me a periodic hypocrite, but, at least I can get the extra large fries every now and then.

I've suspected for a long time that the vocation of "critic" in film, in music, in art has been on a slow train coming toward an eventual arrival at the little town of Irrelevance.

And, for those of you keeping track to make sure you don't  miss a single "Places I Have Visited" sticker, that's Irrelevance.

Not Obsolescence.

That quaint little village is where you'll find things like the Pony Express, gas street lights, eight track tape players, Sony Betamax and, of course, whatever brand new IPhone you're walking out of the store with right this second.

For what its worth, no harshness, mean spiritedness or snarkiness is intended when I offer that critics are irrelevant.

And I'm totally impressed with anyone who can take some knowledge, some personal preferences, some individual opinions and find people willing to buy them, either metaphorically or literally or both.

It's just that I've never been able to get past the belief that critics, in total, have, through the years, done an often wonderful job of sharing their knowledge and/or their preferences and/or their opinions with me, but they have never taught me a thing.

Or shared with me anything that I couldn't have discovered myself simply by watching the movie, viewing the painting, checking out the TV show or listening to the music and/or lyrics.

And in more cases than you can shake an opinion poll at, I have found my own impression of whatever creation experienced to be any where from not even close to "uh, did we watch, view,check out and/or listen to the same piece?"

Critics are irrelevant because what they do is criticize.

And when it comes to any subjective work by anyone at any time, criticism is irrelevant.

Ergo, therefore....

Perhaps, if these folks were to offer their perspectives in a more visually entertaining way. Maybe some background dancers or flaming pyrotechnics; some acrobatics and perhaps even a little tasteful nudity (nothing salacious, of course, and totally necessary to the integrity of the story), maybe then I could see my way clear to being a little more inclined to experience their work.

In much the same way I do when I watch football.

By turning down the sound and simply enjoying the sights without having to be told what I'm seeing and what I'm hearing and, this one's the kicker (pun inevitable), what I should think about it all.

Two kinds of people in the world.

Leaders.

Followers.

Ooops...sorry..."critics" didn't make our list this year.

The Good News?....Not A Kim, Khloe or Kourtney In Sight....Then Again, There's Always Next Year...

Two topics traditionally to be avoided in conversation.

Politics.

Religion.

There's a new topic in town.

Ladies and gentlemen, country music.



NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Miranda Lambert has reached new heights as a female country performer: The fiery singer is the most decorated female artist in the history of the Country Music Association Awards.

Lambert's four wins Wednesday night give the 30-year-old a total of 11 CMA trophies throughout her career, putting her ahead of any other female act. Lambert's fifth consecutive win for female vocalist of the year Wednesday beat a record set by herself, Reba McEntire and Martina McBride.

Lambert also took home album of the year for "Platinum," single of the year for "Automatic" and music event of the year for "We Were Us" with Keith Urban.

"It's really unbelievable," she said backstage. "I felt like this whole night was about really celebrating music."

Lambert lost the night's top award to Luke Bryan, giving the 38-year-old his first CMA. The win for entertainer of the year marked a shift in the genre, which has shunned the party-boy singer who is the leader the contemporary pack of bro-country performers, which includes acts like Florida Georgia Line.

"I have longed and sought after to get one of these in my hands ... To get the respect of the CMA board ... is a ginormous deal," a happy Bryan said backstage. "I am really humbled. I think about the hard work it took to get here. I am so blessed this is from the CMAs and I will never take it for granted."

 

Bryan beat out George Strait, Blake Shelton and Urban for entertainer of the year, and his successful year included the top-selling album "Crash My Party," a string of hit songs and a top-grossing tour.

Bryan also was named last year's entertainer of the year at the Academy of Country Music Awards. He was snubbed when the Grammy Awards revealed their nominees last year, but his CMA win could help him earn some love from the Recording Academy when they announce their nominations next month.

Lambert, too, could be bringing home some Grammy gold since she was the reigning queen of Wednesday's awards show. She stole the night with fashion choices that were winners, too, and performances. She sang twice onstage, including a country-tinged version of "All About That Bass" with breakthrough singer Meghan Trainor, where Shelton looked up and bopped his head.

Shelton, like his wife, made CMA history: He tied Strait and Vince Gill for five wins for male vocalist of the year.    
                                                                                          
"For me and my family, this may be the biggest night of our lives as far as music goes," Shelton said backstage.

"I told my wife when we were walking off the stage, I go, 'Miranda, I'm sorry, you only won four CMAs tonight. I mean, I'm really sorry," he said as reporters laughed.

The theme of the CMAs seemed to be paired performances: Shelton sang with Ashley Monroe; the Doobie Brothers performed with Lady Antebellum's Hillary Scott, Jennifer Nettles and Hunter Hayes; Strait and Eric Church performed "Cowboys Like Us"; and pop diva Ariana Grande sported a mini top and skirt as she sang the hit "Bang Bang" alongside Little Big Town, who won vocal group of the year.

But the night's best collaboration was Carrie Underwood and Brad Paisley. The white-hot duo, hosting the CMAs for a seventh time, earned laugh after laugh for jokes that ranged from Ebola to Taylor Swift to Underwood's baby bump.

Swift's switch to pop from country was referred to as "Postpartum Taylor Swift Disorder," or PPTSD.        

Kacey Musgraves, who won two Grammy Awards earlier this year, won song of the year for "Follow Your Arrow," which she co-wrote with Brandy Clark, who is openly gay and was among the contenders for new artist of the year. "Follow Your Arrow" features the lyrics, "So make lots of noise, kiss lots of boys, or kiss lots of girls, if that's something you're into."

"For a song that I was told could never, and would never, be a single, it just blows my mind," Musgraves said. "It's just an anthem for all kinds of people so I could not be more proud."           

                                                                                    

Musgraves switched gears backstage, closing with a story about a malfunction before her performance Wednesday night.

"Just saw y'all now, my panties totally came off," she said as reporters laughed. "They were the stick-on kind. Look at this dress, there's not much to work with."

I didn't watch the awards show last night, primarily because my personal enjoyment of and/or interest in those kinds of things waned a long time ago.

Sparing you the yada yada, I'll just offer that somewhere along the line they all began to come off to me like little more than very long infomercials for product coated in a thin candy shell of self congratulations.

And did I mention that they were very long?

I did, though, find some amusement and not just a little interest in watching some of the back and forth on social media while the show was in progress.

And not your usual fan based blather about what hottie totties the boys from Florida Georgia Line are or how cool Miranda Lambert looks since she lost weight.

Every four to seven minutes or, put another way, each time she headed back up to the stage to accept another award.

I noticed, and for the first time, actually, a noticeable amount of disdain for the whole thing from some of Nashville's more accomplished talents.

To name a couple, songwriter/singer Mary Ann Kennedy who, with partner Pam Rose, has had a very successful career writing hits for country stars through the years, not to mention some recording and performing success of her own.

And Angela Kaset, one of those folks often referred to as "a songwriter's songwriter" which, truth be told, is just a kind of five dollar term for "she's really good at what she does"; again, a lady whose songwriting resume boasts some very impressive credentials.

(BTW: both of these ladies posted either on Twitter or Facebook and since I assume they knew their posts were "public", I'm using their names without having rung them up to say "hey, ladies, can I use your names?")

Neither of these talents were what you'd call "knocked out" by what they were hearing/seeing.

One post, in fact, went so far as to opine "I don't know what you call this...but it ain't country music."

Okay.

Let's save ourselves some time here.

Any discussion of the current state of country music that includes anything other than rabid, drooling worship of the current state of country music is, at best, a slippery slope and, at worst, a waste of time.

Because (and get ready for a fun burst of comic irony here), the feelings that folks have about that current state have, for my pesos, been summed up best by the aforementioned former country, now pop, chanteuse Taylor Swift in her latest number one pop hit.

And to paraphrase the postpartum pop princesses' lyrical observation:

"...Purists gonna hate/hate/hate/hate/hate...
.....While the kids just think it's great/great/great/great/great....
.....So whichever side you take/take/take/take/take....

.....try to understand that the name of the game is fame and fortune here......."

And if something in the way of actually memorable, non disposable music happens to get created along the way, it's kind of a "penicillin was discovered by accident" sort of thing.

Personally, my age, tastes, experiences and proclivities put me squarely on the side of Team Kennedy/Kaset.

But intellectually, and professionally, I totally understand what's going on here.

That said, I can't help but feel a little nostalgic, even a little petty.

Miranda Lambert seems like a nice kid.

But 11 CMA Awards (so far?).

It's kind of the same way I feel about Hillary Clinton.

Okay. She's got her good points

But the best of the best?

Hmmm.

And while I'm willing to concede that every generation brings its own attitudes to bear on the culture and I'm not going to rant poetic on the inclusion of Ariana Grande and the Doobs, et al, on what is still promoted as a "country music" program, one thought does poke me a little on this day after.

I honestly never thought I would get the feeling that Loretta Lynn was out of place on a country music program.

Mary Ann...Angela....I hear ya, sistahs.

Best we try to shake it off.

Shake it off.

"...We Apologize For What Just Happened Here On Our Show...And Hope You'll Join Us Tomorrow When We Pick Up Where We Left Off......"

Old saying.

No such thing as bad publicity.

That little peanut floated to the top of the Pepsi can this week.



The scene: Talk radio station Delaware 105.9 FM's Lewes studio. The players: Host Dan Gaffney; his invited guest for the hour, Sussex County Council candidate Rob Arlett; and then, suddenly, a guest Gaffney would soon eject from the room: Arlett's opponent in the Sept. 9 primary, incumbent Council member Vance Phillips.

In a highly unscripted encounter whose awkwardness carried quite clearly over the airwaves, Phillips surprised Gaffney and Arlett Thursday by dropping in on their one-on-one chat about Arlett's campaign stances and answers to listener calls.

 

The episode was not the first time Gaffney and Phillips, a long-serving GOP county official, got into a testy exchange on-air. It started when Gaffney interrupted Arlett, a real-estate agent who is Phillips' only challenger in the Republican primary, in mid-sentence.

"Vance Phillips, your opponent, has just walked in the studio. Vance, I thought we had an agreement for next Tuesday," Gaffney said.

"How you left it was, this was an open debate," Phillips countered. "I was under the impression that I would be welcome."

Listeners then learned the following: Gaffney and Phillips had been texting each other for days to set up an on-air interview. Phillips told Gaffney Thursday morning was out because he had a scheduled surgery, one of many following a 2011 ultralight-plane accident that damaged his spine; Gaffney believed Phillips would come to the studio on Tuesday, Sept. 2, instead. Phillips said the surgery got rescheduled – so there he was.

"I would say, I've not eaten anything in two days. I might be a little off," Phillips said matter-of-factly. "But I thought I'd be welcome. If I'm intruding I can leave."

At first, Gaffney seemed like he'd ignore the second candidate in the room, and took a caller who had a question for Arlett about farmland preservation. But then Gaffney said: "Since Vance has walked in in the middle of this interview, what is it you'd like to say? You walked in and sat yourself down there."

"I think it's important the voters hear both our voices," Phillips said calmly. "I've never seen you look so puzzled, Dan."

The next caller, Eileen in Lewes, was the first one to take in just what was transpiring. And she didn't like it.

"You have a perfect example of what I've always thought about Sussex County politics and the way things work," she said. "I don't have to have an appointment! I can do what I want, come and go as I want – I'm running the show. Good ol' boys network."

It didn't get any better for Phillips from there. "Does the caller have a point?" Gaffney asked as Arlett, still in the studio, said nothing to interrupt things. [He later called the episode "shameful" for Phillips, and said it shows "the opponent thinks it's all about him."] "The only person doing an ambush here is you."

Phillips gave no ground. "You didn't respond [to a text message] for two days, Dan. I thought that was a little rude," he said. "I'm sure you've got callers lined up to attack me."

"I am not lining up any callers. You're outta your mind," Gaffney said, sounding exasperated. "Are you on pain meds? I'm serious."

After two more calls, Gaffney collected his thoughts well enough to propose a next step: Both candidates could come on the show together on Tuesday, Sept. 2 in the morning for a debate. Arlett was fine with that.

Phillips, though, said he'd hoped for a one-on-one chat that day, the kind Arlett was having with Gaffney before his surprise entrance. "That's a little disappointing," he said. "I did make an extra effort to get here."

Which is when Gaffney booted him out. "Could you leave now? I would like you to leave," Gaffney said.

Phillips made an exit, perhaps not a graceful one. "Because Dan doesn't have his ducks lined up, we'll do it next Tuesday," he said to Arlett, and the audience, as he left.

A few weeks ago, it was Phillips who grew exasperated with Gaffney on-air. The host asked Phillips to say something about a much-publicized lawsuit targeting him as a defendant. The plaintiff, a young woman who worked in Sussex GOP politics, accused Phillips of sexual abuse that terrified her so much she feared telling anyone about it. Phillips, in court papers, denied any wrongdoing but isn't willing to say much about the suit otherwise, citing legal advice.

 

"Do you deny the allegations?" Gaffney asked him several times in the Aug. 1 interview, which took place in a crowded Bridgeville restaurant serving breakfast.

"Dan, are you gonna just really try to ruin this interview by putting this out there when you know that I can't say a thing?" Phillips replied then. "If you and my other detractors want to either entertain Sussex County with this very unfortunate set of circumstances, it really does question your professionalism, I believe."





To keep the story current and ducks, due respect to the participants here, in a row, it should be mentioned that since this incident, and the initial story reprinted here, Phillips has sent a letter of apology to Gaffney and Arlett with a sincere, or disingenuous depending on your personal political stripe, yada yada blah blah blah about low blood sugar or something and Gaffney has declared, via social media, that he is ready to move on and get on with the upcoming debate.

Meanwhile, from the disclaimer folder:

Although all of this is taking place in my own backyard, I confess that I don't know enough about Sussex County politics to offer any intelligent opinion about the race per se.

And I have guest hosted, on air, for some of the folks at Delaware 105.9, including Dan Gaffney.

That said, any appearances or appearance notwithstanding, I have no agenda writing this piece.

From an outside looking in point of view, though, I think it fair to offer that, at best, Vance Phillips hasn't done himself any favors with the voters of Sussex Country.

Lunacy and/or prescription influenced wack a doo-ness might be all the rage in the more urban clusters of our U.S of A, but it really doesn't inspire voter loyalty amongst the folk living, working and/or lever pulling amongst the population of this more "traditional" part of the map.

That old saying about publicity comes in to play at this point, though.

And not so much from where you might suspect it plays.

Because, trust me when I tell you from personal experience, that the life blood of talk radio is not only people talking on the radio about what they've heard on the news, on the streets and/or in the world, but, perhaps even more so, people talking about what they've heard on the radio.

And people are talking about Vance Phillips and Rob Arlett and Dan Gaffney.

So, with a little understandably biased "atta boy, Dan" coming from this section of the cheap seats, permit me, if you will, to sum it up accordingly.

Bet the farm that the listeners/voters of Sussex Country appreciate an advocate who shoots straight and from the hip in the person of Dan Gaffney.

But I'll double down on the money that Dan Gaffney appreciates a loose cannon like Vance Phillips.

If only because this kind of brouhaha might be the stuff of campaign manager's nightmares.

But it's a station sales manager's dream come true.

"...Might Be They Started Saying 'And The Emmy Goes To' Because It Was Hard To Say The Word Winner Without Rolling Their Eyes...."

Cue Steve Martin running clumsily in from the mail box.

"Emmy nominations are here! Emmy nominations are here!"

Or, if you're of a slightly younger demographic, let's go with Forrest Gump being wheeled in from having his buttocks bandaged.

"Lt. Dan! Ice cream!....and Emmy nominations!...."

The "experts" are already feverishly typing their predictions and/or betting lines on the winners.

Meanwhile, I'm neither an expert nor a particularly feverish typist.

And my predictions have nothing to do with anything other than a sense of how these things work, acquired and honed over the, say, fifty years, give or take, that I've been around to witness the process.

Starting out a long time ago, in a black and white TV featured living room, in a suburb far, far away.

So, don't bet the farm, or anything else for that matter, on any hairball of forecast I cough up here.

Simply enjoy, if you will.

Oh...and somewhere around midnight on August 25th, remember I told you so.



Outstanding Drama Series
Breaking Bad
Downton Abbey
Game of Thrones
House of Cards
Mad Men
True Detective

Wow...look at all those quality shows nominated from one of the three "major" networks. NOT. Breaking Bad lingers in the hearts of voters but not in their actual voting cortexes. Downton Abbey is still cool but it's "what have you Masterpiece Theatered for me lately?" cool. House Of Cards is about politics and Congress and/or Obama have pretty much soured pretty much everybody on voting for anything remotely connected to politics. Mad Men's nod, frankly, is a little bit of a mystery because it's not only set in the sixties, it's really yesterday's news. Comes down to a neck and neck between True Detective and Game Of Thrones. And when it comes to these "big" awards, buzz is absolutely everything. While True D is, in my o, more "cutting edge", you can pretty much rest assured that the combination of blood, boobs and a faux, but very effective, coating of "literary" pretty much guarantees "Thrones" will be seated at the head of this particular award table.


 Lead Actress in a Drama Series
Lizzy Caplan, Masters of Sex
Kerry Washington, Scandal
Michelle Dockery, Downton Abbey
Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife
Claire Danes, Homeland
Robin Wright, House of Cards

Not a lot of "name" value here. Claire Danes is a fan fave, but probably not buzzy enough to win. Julianna Margulies is classy, but when did that ever matter when it comes to any other Emmy voters besides the PBS posse? This award is a dice toss. I say Robin Wright because she showed Sean Penn the door. TV watchers love Jenny from Forrest Gump and hate Jeff Spuccoli for being mean to both Madonna and Robin.


 
Lead Actor in a Drama Series
Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad
Jeff Daniels, The Newsroom
Jon Hamm, Mad Men
Woody Harrelson, True Detective
Matthew McConaughey, True Detective
Kevin Spacey, House of Cards


Bryan Cranston is superb but superb in a "wow that was a superb meatloaf last night but it's just leftovers now" way. Jeff Daniels has amazing range given his ability to give credibility to both Will McAvoy and the dumber than dumb Harry Dunne but Aaron Sorkin's work seems to have fallen out of favor post "West Wing". Voters who lean toward edgier, even weirder, are likely True Detective connoisseurs, but that likely means that Harrelson and McConaughey cancel each other out. Then there's Kevin Spacey who is excellent but not really "TV people" and Jon Hamm whose Mad Men is, as mentioned before, showing signs of fatigue. That pretty much rules everybody out. So, my money is on the Academy doing what it always seems to do....play it safe and give the award to someone that makes people say "uh, well, okay, I guess that's cool". And in this batch, that would be the already moved on to Broadway stardom Bryan Cranston.



Outstanding Comedy Series
The Big Bang Theory
Louie
Modern Family
Orange Is the New Black
Silicon Valley
Veep


Big Bang is, according to recent information, the most popular comedy series globally which is a pretty heavy pedigree. But they've been around seven years now and that always turns off the voters who want to seem hip and groovy with their choices. Louis C.K. is a funny guy, but he's no Jim Parsons and his comedy chops hardly pull the weight needed to merit awarding an entire show. Sillicon Valley is one of those shows that everybody says they really like but don't really watch all that much. And Modern Family is, while still fun, sharply written and beautifully performed, another one of those "been around for a while and showing a little wearing out in the knees and cuffs" nominees. I like Veep. I think it's darkly funny and just far enough out of the box while keeping a toe or two in the box to deserve this Emmy. But Orange is not only the new Black, it's the show that gives every Academy member who votes for it the chance to say truthfully that they are hip, groovy and tuned to the buzz because they voted for....Orange Is the New Black.


Lead Actress in a Comedy Series
Lena Dunham, Girls
Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Veep
Melissa McCarthy, Mike & Molly
Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation
Taylor Schilling, Orange Is the New Black


Melissa McCarthy has probably ruined any chance she has of ever picking up another Emmy by defecting over to the movie side of the street. And given the "plucky and/or obnoxious fat girl" label she and/or her peeps have decided to plaster on her career for now, the odds of her being awarded for the "awww, they're overweight, but really sweet and just like real people" role that first got her noticed fall into the category of....wait for it....fat chance. I think Amy Poehler is the comedy equivalent of John Lennon. She has done some reasonably interesting stuff, but she has never been as good as she was when she worked (works) with her Paul, Tina Fey. Also, Parks and Recreation is The Office in, well, a parks and recreation office. Lena Dunham? MTV and BET might give awards to attractive, but average, girls with real, albeit somewhat misshapen and moderately floppy breasts, who offer up courageous looks at said breasts, but Emmy doesn't. Schilling has the Big Mo that comes from being on the big O, but her actual name recognition doesn't translate into votes. Which leaves Edie and Julia, both veteran super novas of TV talent, one in a very darkly funny show about a caring nurse who loves people but hates herself, the other in a very darkly funny show about a self absorbed politician who loves herself but thinks anybody who cant do her some good should just fuck off. This one's a poser, cause I think it's one of them thar proverbial dead heats. Pushed to pick, I say Louis-Dreyfus. Although Falco is crafty and might use her drug acquisition skills to yank it out from under her..


Lead Actor in a Comedy Series
Louis CK, Louie
Don Cheadle, House of Lies
Ricky Gervais, Derek
Matt LeBlanc, Episodes
William H Macy, Shameless
Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory


Jim Parsons is gold, but old gold and the hip and groovy faction will want to move on this time. Macy is edgy but kind of left field as these things tend to go. Gervais has been a flavor of the week but I suspect this will be neither the favored flavor or the week. Matt LeBlanc cleverly lampoons Matt LeBlanc but that's not something the hip and groovy faction thinks qualifies him to win. Cheadle? A versatile and accomplished actor with a mega rich CV. But lead actor in a "comedy" series? Not so much. By default, Louis CK takes Emmy home because, gosh darn it, he's one funny dude. And Jim Parsons doesn't have any more room in the trophy case.


 
Outstanding Miniseries
American Horror Story: Coven
Bonnie & Clyde
Fargo
Luther
Treme
The White Queen


This is one of those awards that, in a pre-DVR world, caused people absolutely no concern whatsoever at having to leave the room for a pee before a commercial arrived to assist them. In a DVR and/or pause the play world, though, this is one of those awards that causes people absolutely no concern whatsoever at having to leave the room for a pee before a commercial arrives to assist them.

Oh. And, by the way, while you were peeing, American Horror Story won an Emmy.


 
Outstanding Television Movie
Killing Kennedy
Muhammad Ali’s Greatest Fight
The Normal Heart
Sherlock: His Last Vow
The Trip to Bountiful


The Kennedy nostalgia momentum came to a screeching halt November 23, 2013, as the 50th anniversary of the assassination came to a screeching halt. And, not for nothin,  I totally respected Rob Lowe as Sam Seaborn but as JFK, I kept thinking that Tina Fey and Amy Poehler were going to walk on set any minute as Judith Campbell and Marilyn Monroe. All the others, except The Normal Heart, were fine, laudable presentations that lacked only one virtue that might have scored them a win. They weren't The Normal Heart. When it comes to winning Emmys, very few things are a much a lock as poignant shows and/or movies about the very human drama of homosexuality.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.


 
Outstanding Variety, Music, or Comedy Series
The Colbert Report
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Jimmy Kimmel Live
Real Time with Bill Maher
Saturday Night Live
The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon


This category is so obviously apples and oranges that it comes down to which ever one is the hippest and grooviest at voting time in the eyes of the hip and groovy faction of the voters. I'm not really hip to what's hip in that circle, so I have to do a little close my eyes and stab my finger at the phone book kind of thing.

And the finger lands on...and the Emmy goes to...The Colbert Report.


 
Outstanding Reality-Competition Program
The Amazing Race
Dancing With the Stars
Project Runway
So You Think You Can Dance
Top Chef
The Voice


Another chance to pee.
The Voice, if you really need to know.
Mostly because Blake Shelton looks good to the ladies in his tight ass jeans.


 
Outstanding Host for a Reality or Reality-Competition Program
Betty White, Betty White’s Off Their Rockers
Tom Bergeron, Dancing With the Stars
Jane Lynch, Hollywood Game Night
Heidi Klum/Tim Gunn, Project Runway
Cat Deeley, So You Think You Can Dance
Anthony Bourdain, The Taste 


When they order the Emmys, they apparently have to buy in bulk. As a result, there are certain categories that exist, apparently, for no better reason than they have a certain number of them things to give away.


 

Lead Actress in a Television Movie/Miniseries

Helena Bonham Carter, Burton and Taylor
Jessica Lange, American Horror Story: Coven
Minnie Driver, Return to Zero
Sarah Paulson, American Horror Story: Coven
Cicely Tyson, The Trip to Bountiful
Kristen Wiig, The Spoils of Babylon


There are times when the list of nominees is so crammed tightly full of amazing, one of a kind performances in amazing, one of a kind productions that choosing a winner is, for all intents and purposes, a staggering task.

This list of nominees and productions is kind of the opposite of that.


 
Leading Actor in a Television Movie/Miniseries
Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock: His Last Vow
Idris Elba, Luther
Chiwetel Ejiofor, Dancing On the Edge
Martin Freeman, Fargo
Billy Bob Thornton, Fargo
Mark Ruffalo, The Normal Heart


Kinda the same thing here as with the previous category.
Bet the bank on Mark Ruffalo, though, cause, again, we're talking poignant movie about the very human drama of homosexuality.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.


Supporting Actress in a Drama Series
Anna Gunn, Breaking Bad
Maggie Smith, Downton Abbey
Joanne Froggatt, Downton Abbey
Lena Headey, Game of Thrones
Christine Baranski, The Good Wife
Christina Hendricks, Mad Men 

Supporting actress and actor nominations are really of interest to only seriously devoted fans of the respective shows and/or respective actress and/or actor. Primarily because for every, say, Maggie Smith, whose name rings a bell with a lot of people because of her vast volume of work, there's a Joanne Froggatt who is an accomplished actress but often confused with the British rock band whose hit "Slow Ride" is a staple of classic rock radio. And of the six nominees listed here, you've got one from a show that is no more, two from a show from PBS which registers neither jack nor squat with the Keeping With the Kartrashians krowd, one from an HBO show that is absolutely the flavor of the week but the clock, as ever, is ticking, one who does a remarkable job but probably has some viewers wondering why Dr. Beverly Hofstetder is double dipping on The Good Wife and one buxom redhead on a show that was oh so trendy right up to the second that it was no longer oh so trendy.

This one is a total dice roll.
I say seven, eleven and Headley.
Because the main game in town these days is that game that involves thrones.


 
Supporting Actor in a Drama Series
Aaron Paul, Breaking Bad
Jim Carter, Downton Abbey
Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones
Josh Charles, The Good Wife
Mandy Patinkin, Homeland
Jon Voight, Ray Donovan 


Likewise as previously explained.
Dinklage is the throne game player here and a surer thing there could not-eth be.



Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series
Mayim Bialik, The Big Bang Theory
Julie Bowen, Modern Family
Allison Janney, Mom
Kate Mulgrew, Orange Is the New Black
Kate McKinnon, Saturday Night Live
Anna Chlumsky, Veep 


Bowen is sharp and fun as Mama Dunphy but, again, the show is in "what have you done for me lately" mode, Janney is a world class actress who is breaking my heart by working in a sitcom that makes Cougar Town look like the finest work of Paddy Chayefsky, Orange is the New Black and Mulgrew might be able to ride the wave, but she's still got a little typecasting dust from Star Trek Voyager to overcome, McKinnon is a brilliantly gifted comic impersonator but calling Saturday Night Live a comedy series is like calling The Daily Show a news program and Anna Chlumsky brings enough sass, satire and potty mouth to Veep to more than make us forget My Girl, that big screen block of cheesy schmaltz that probably put MacCauley Culkin off the idea of ever again eating honey.
This leaves Mayim Bialik and her multi layered portrait of Amy Farrah Fowler.
I think this is a unique talent doing a five star job and every bit deserving of this award.
So I predict that Kate Mulgrew will get it because she happens to be on Orange is the New Black.


 
Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series
Andre Braugher, Brooklyn Nine-Nine
Adam Driver, Girls
Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Modern Family
Ty Burrell, Modern Family
Fred Armisen, Portlandia
Tony Hale, Veep 


The academy, every now and then, like to appear to be cutting edge in one category while, at the same time, attempting to atone for blowing it in another. Since Brooklyn Nine Nine was in almost all the articles about surprises and snubs for its failure to receive a series nomination, I go here with Andre Brauger, the evening's designated atonee.


 
Supporting Actress in a Miniseries or Movie
Frances Conroy, American Horror Story: Coven
Kathy Bates, American Horror Story: Coven
Angela Bassett, American Horror Story: Coven
Allison Tolman, Fargo
Ellen Burstyn, Flowers in the Attic
Julia Roberts, The Normal Heart 
 
Supporting Actor in a Miniseries or Movie
Colin Hanks, Fargo
Jim Parsons, The Normal Heart
Joe Mantello, The Normal Heart
Alfred Molina, The Normal Heart
Matt Bomer, The Normal Heart
Martin Freeman, Sherlock: His Last Vow 


I lumped these two categories together because they both fit into my previous dissertation about the whole supporting actor, actress thing.

If pick I must, though, here's the pickees.

Roberts for The Normal Heart because, well, it's The Normal Heart, a poignant movie about the...yada yada.

Colin Hanks for Fargo because, at least one time all night long, the academy is going to want to show how objective they are by giving someone, anyone, some award, any award, in any category that has nominees from The Normal Heart in it to someone, anyone who was nominated for something besides The Normal Heart.

Besides, four of the six nominees are The Normal Heart and, I mean, come on, really?

And Colin Hanks is Tom Hanks son and Tom won an Oscar for Philadelphia, a poignant movie about the very human drama of homosexuality.

Not that there's anything....well, you know.


 
Outstanding Reality Program
Antiques Roadshow
Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives
MythBusters
Alaska: The Last Frontier
Deadliest Catch
Shark Tank
Undercover Boss
Who Do You Think You Are?

Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Series
American Masters
COSMOS: A SpaceTime Odyssey
Pioneers Of Television
The World Wars
Years of Living Dangerously
 
Outstanding Informational Series or Special
Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown
Inside The Actors Studio
Through The Wormhole With Morgan Freeman
Vice
The Writers' Room
 
Outstanding Variety Special
AFI Life Achievement Award: A Tribute To Mel Brooks
The Beatles: The Night That Changed America
Best Of Late Night With Jimmy Fallon Primetime Special
Billy Crystal: 700 Sundays
The Kennedy Center Honors
Sarah Silverman: We Are Miracles
 
Outstanding Animated Program
Archer
Bob's Burgers
Futurama
South Park
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Manhattan Project
 
Outstanding Children's Program
Degrassi
Dog With A Blog
Good Luck Charlie
Nick News With Linda Ellerbee - Family Secrets: When Violence Hits Home
One Last Hug: Three Days At Grief Camp
Wynton Marsalis – A YoungArts Masterclass

To paraphrase the classic pop band Chicago..."does anyone really know what any of these shows are?...does anyone really care?...."


 
Guest Actress in a Drama Series
Margo Martindale, The Americans
Diana Rigg, Game of Thrones
Kate Mara, House of Cards
Allison Janney, Masters of Sex
Jane Fonda, The Newsroom
Kate Burton, Scandal 
 
Guest Actor in a Drama Series
Paul Giamatti, Downton Abbey
Dylan Baker, The Good Wife
Reg E Cathey, House of Cards
Robert Morse, Mad Men
Beau Bridges, Masters of Sex
Joe Morton, Scandal 
 
Guest Actress in a Comedy Series
Natasha Lyonne, Orange Is the New Black
Uzo Aduba, Orange Is the New Black
Laverne Cox, Orange Is the New Black
Tina Fey, Saturday Night Live
Melissa McCarthy, Saturday Night Live
Joan Cusack, Shameless 
 
Guest Actor in a Comedy Series
Bob Newhart, The Big Bang Theory
Nathan Lane, Modern Family
Steve Buscemi, Portlandia
Jimmy Fallon, Saturday Night Live
Louis C.K., Saturday Night Live
Gary Cole, Veep 


Personally, I think the whole "guest actor/guest actress" category is a bit of a cheat to the hard working folk who toil day in/day out/season after, hopefully, season on their respective shows.

You drop by, get a script, do the table read, do the blocking, do a rehearsal, enjoy the fine culinary creations at the craft table, tape before a live audience, grab your check and hit the door.

Then, bang, you're nominated for an Emmy.

Reminds me of an old off color card my father used to carry in his wallet.

"I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was."

Just to say I did finish up the prediction list, let's do a quick run through.

Rigg for Game Of Thrones because it's, say it with me.....Game....of........

Robert Morse for Mad Men because the Emmy voters like to throw at least one bone to an old guy and Morse is older than Beau Bridges.

Uzo Aduba for Orange....not only because it's Orange, but likely because they'll take a shot at getting John Travolta to give out the award and then giggle gleefully as they await whatever mangling of her name takes place.

Bob Newhart for Big Bang. Old guy thing again. But in this case, a really, really talented and obviously sweet old guy who showed those already very talented youngsters who make up the Big Bang cast a thing or two about impeccable comic timing.



As I said at the long ago outset, I am not an "expert" nor am I a "professional" TV analyst.

I'm just a guy who has watched TV and award shows for fifty plus years and has a pretty good handle on how it, and they, work.

Watch August 25 and see.

The Emmys will consist in the largest measure of three ingredients.

The color orange.

Games played with thrones.

And the poignant and very human drama of homosexuality.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

"...Thinking We Need To Re-think The Whole Concept Of People Who Get Paid To Think Up Ways To Tell People What To Think...."

Never been much for "critics".

Which shouldn't be confused with  "being critical" because, Lord knows, I'm always ready, willing and able to step up and offer the loose change left from my having spent 98 of a hundred pennies.

But, "critic", by its current cultural definition, implies both expertise and wisdom, cogent perspective and valid analysis.

A reasonable measure by which to judge whether we should, or should not, like or dislike something.

Pish.

And would you like tosh with that?

Lest you already be loading up the word hypocrite in your retort revolver, allow me to disarm you.

The admittedly hair thin, but, I would offer, key distinction between my readiness to be critical and my disdain for "critics" isn't about presentation, though, as much as it is purpose.

When I'm critical of something, I'm expressing my personal opinion for no more reason than to express it.

"Critics", meanwhile, are, by the current cultural tradition, implying that you should, or should not, buy, watch, listen to, participate in and/or endorse the particular product, program, music, event, et al that they are "critic-ing".

You see, I can't even bring myself to use the word criticize in that context, let alone refrain from employing quotation marks when writing the word "critic".

Because, in nothing more or less than my personal opinion, a "critic" is to criticism as a "pundit" is to political perspective.

An individual who, through bluster, bravado, fate, fortune and/or a world class talent for shoveling copious amounts of horse hockey has managed to convince large numbers of people that they should be paid for their opinions.

Think consultants and subtract graduate school and/or a rolodex of business contacts that could choke the hockey manufacturing horse.

As opposed to those of us who just have an opinion and let it loose, free of charge, every now and then.

In the latter category, at this writing, we find yours truly.

Meanwhile, in the former, the name Brian Lowry suddenly springs to mind.

Lowry is credited as being the "TV columnist" for the online edition of Variety Magazine.

Damn.

There's those pesky quotation marks again.

I suspect it might be because, lacking a mama who didn't raise no fool, I'm probably correctly suspicious that use of the term "TV columnist" is designed to, if only subliminally, put a shiny coat of credibility on the nametag Lowry wears, lest there be any cynics in the crowd, like, for example, myself who would already be turning a deaf ear in the direction of anybody wearing a nametag with the dreaded C word on it.

Either way, in the course of looking up some information about a documentary series that I have been particularly enamored of in recent weeks, I came across the following "review" of said series, written by Mr. Lowry, the, say it with me, "T V c o l u m n i s t".



Tethered to the rather sobering notion that the youngest baby boomers are turning 50 this year, CNN’s “The Sixties” provides a nostalgic if not particularly insightful look at that tumultuous decade, one that inevitably features considerable overlap as it crisscrosses from topic to topic.

Produced by Tom Hanks and properly littered with both experts and participants in its history, the 10-part production is a classy trip, but as constructed (with occasional exceptions), not quite the magical history tour it might have been.

So much went on during this formative period that it’s difficult to choose where to begin. Moreover, an hour devoted to Vietnam can’t help but bleed into others subtitled “The British Invasion” and “Sex, Drugs, and Rock ’N’ Roll.”

Perhaps appropriately, “The Sixties” opens with “Television Comes of Age,” charting the advancement of the medium’s influence, starting with the Kennedy-Nixon debates, and proceeding through JFK’s assassination (“the moment television journalism comes of age,” says Dan Rather), as well as groundbreaking programs like “Star Trek,” “The Smothers Bros. Comedy Hour” and “Laugh-In.”

Throughout, there are fascinating clips, quotes and tidbits, like a young Ralph Nader saying TV is “the medium that’s either going to save America or send it down in demise,” or a young Mick Jagger being asked — two years into his stardom — how long he thinks he and the Rolling Stones can continue to perform. During the segment devoted to Vietnam, there’s also chilling audio of President Johnson confiding to aides regarding the war, “I don’t think it’s worth fighting, and I don’t think we can get out.”

Among the handful of segments previewed, the best is clearly a two-hour installment (the other extended chapter addresses the Civil Rights movement) that chronicles the Kennedy assassination and its aftermath, including the skepticism that followed the Warren Commission Report and attempts in its wake to prove a conspiracy.

For all that, what’s largely missing from “The Sixties,” despite its meticulous detail in capturing these memorable events, is how much they resonate to this day, and the oversized influence that decade continues to wield over modern-day culture. Indeed, “Mad Men” has drawn much of its relevance from the desire to keep re-litigating the ’60s politically, and addressing at least some of that within the documentary would only have made it richer and more contextual.

Instead, “The Sixties” primarily plays like an opportunity for those who actually experienced the changeover from black-and-white TV to living color to re-experience that glow, without necessarily bridging the gap for a younger generation weaned on having access to all that entertainment and more in its pocket.

At its best “The Sixties” is admirable, but to riff on an old promotional slogan, it isn’t all that it could be: Yes, it’s an exercise that might capture the magic of landing on the moon, but doesn’t take the extra step that would send viewers over it.


Okay, first, credit where due.

I'm a fan of clever writing style.

And, all of his slant on the series notwithstanding, Mr. Lowry did wrap it all up nicely with that fun connecting/contrasting of the decade concluding drama of the 1969 landing on the moon with the failure, in his eyes, of the series itself to "send viewers over it".

Clap, clap, Brian.

Ralph Kramden couldn't have sent Alice lunar bound with any more wit than that.

Meanwhile, back at the "review".

I've watched the first five installments of the series.....


Television Comes Of Age...the advent of the television era...

The World On The Brink....the story of the Cuban missile crisis...

The Assassination Of President Kennedy.

The War In Vietnam.

A Long March To Freedom...the civil rights movement...


From the get go, I looked forward to these shows and this series in general, primarily because, going in, I knew that they were produced by Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman and Mark Herzog.

Herzog, the producer of the award winning "Gettysburg".

Goetzman, the producer of the remarkable "John Adams" for HBO.

Hanks, of course, the Oscar winning actor, but the accomplished producer of, among other projects, the superior HBO mini-series portraying the American space program from its primitive beginnings, culminating in the aforementioned landing of men on the moon in 1969, "From The Earth To The Moon".

All of this classy stuff from some producers who obviously have more than just a little game.

At this writing, the first five episodes of "The Sixties" have more than met my expectations.

In fact, in the case of both the JFK and civil rights installments, I was impressed enough to start composing thoughts to share my enthusiasm about them, and the series in general, on my Facebook page which then evolved into an idea for a whole essay for this blog site which had me researching a fact or two which led me to.....

the "review" written by Mr. Lowry.

Which will bring us back to do-re-me-so, here we are.

At this point, a point need be made.

I'm not faulting Brian Lowry personally or, for that matter, his opinion.

He's entitled to it.

The only problem that I have with his sharing here is the essentially the same problem I always have when it comes to "critics".

Let's call it the "formees"

And that Lowry leaves them out.

With the assistance of a little copying and cutting and pasting, allow me.



Tethered to the rather sobering notion that the youngest baby boomers are turning 50 this year, CNN’s “The Sixties” provides a nostalgic if, FOR ME, not particularly insightful look at that tumultuous decade, one that inevitably features considerable overlap as it crisscrosses from topic to topic.

Produced by Tom Hanks and properly littered with both experts and participants in its history, the 10-part production is a classy trip, but as constructed (with occasional exceptions), not, FOR ME, quite the magical history tour it might have been.

So much went on during this formative period that it’s difficult, FOR ME, to choose where to begin. Moreover, an hour devoted to Vietnam can’t help but bleed into others subtitled “The British Invasion” and “Sex, Drugs, and Rock ’N’ Roll.”

Perhaps appropriately, “The Sixties” opens with “Television Comes of Age,” charting the advancement of the medium’s influence, starting with the Kennedy-Nixon debates, and proceeding through JFK’s assassination (“the moment television journalism comes of age,” says Dan Rather), as well as groundbreaking programs like “Star Trek,” “The Smothers Bros. Comedy Hour” and “Laugh-In.”

Throughout, there are fascinating clips, quotes and tidbits, like a young Ralph Nader saying TV is “the medium that’s either going to save America or send it down in demise,” or a young Mick Jagger being asked — two years into his stardom — how long he thinks he and the Rolling Stones can continue to perform. During the segment devoted to Vietnam, there’s also chilling audio of President Johnson confiding to aides regarding the war, “I don’t think it’s worth fighting, and I don’t think we can get out.”

Among the handful of segments previewed, the best, FOR ME,  is clearly a two-hour installment (the other extended chapter addresses the Civil Rights movement) that chronicles the Kennedy assassination and its aftermath, including the skepticism that followed the Warren Commission Report and attempts in its wake to prove a conspiracy.

For all that, what’s largely missing, FOR ME, from “The Sixties,” despite its meticulous detail in capturing these memorable events, is how much they resonate to this day, and the oversized influence that decade continues to wield over modern-day culture. Indeed, “Mad Men” has drawn much of its relevance from the desire to keep re-litigating the ’60s politically, and addressing at least some of that within the documentary would only have made it richer and more contextual FOR ME.

Instead, “The Sixties” primarily plays, FOR ME, like an opportunity for those who actually experienced the changeover from black-and-white TV to living color to re-experience that glow, without necessarily bridging the gap for a younger generation weaned on having access to all that entertainment and more in its pocket.

At its best “The Sixties” is, FOR ME, admirable, but to riff on an old promotional slogan, it isn’t all that it could be FOR ME: Yes, it’s an exercise that might capture the magic of landing on the moon, but doesn’t take the extra step, FOR ME, that would send viewers over it.


Again, nothing personal there, Brian.

I have this same little itch of an issue every time I sit down with the wife to enjoy an episode of the cooking competition show, "Chopped".

If you haven't seen it, in a nutshell, four chefs compete in three elimination rounds judged by three, wait for it, "experts" (read: chefs who, as opposed to the talented but basically unknown competitors, have a certain name, ergo celebrity value) who rate their food on creativity, presentation and, oh, yes, flavor.

My wife is a lovely person.

With an infinite amount of patience.

As you might imagine.

Not the least of which is demonstrated as, with each "critique" by the three judge chefs of the respective competing chefs, I do a little game of "interjection" into their comments.

For example....

Judge Chef offers: "I love what you did with the moose meat, Competing Chef Fred, it had nary a hint of antlers which, as we all know, just like shell left in the crab bisque, can be a real buzzkill during pre-main course chit chat, but the maple flavored WD-40 sauce lacked a certain zing....."

It's usually about that time I armchair add a resounding "FOR ME!" to the analysis.

At which point my wife smiles softly, quietly continuing to multi task the viewing of the competition with conquering the next level of Candy Crush, all the while indulging me my aggressive asterisking of the cook fest.

I wonder if Brian Lowry's wife ever yells out "FOR ME!" when reading her husband's reviews.

Probably not.

Most likely because Brian's totally subjective assessment of whatever it is he happens to be assessing at any given time probably, at least, pays for the data plan on that smartphone that Mrs. L uses to conquer the next level of Candy Crush.

Whereas my two cents creates a cash flow of less than two cents.

At the same time, I'm not expecting you to like or dislike, even watch or not watch, what I think to be a remarkable documentary simply on the basis of you reading here that I think The Sixties, produced by Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman and Mark Herzog is a remarkable documentary.

Because, after all, we all, all of us, are entitled to our own opinion.

Quote, unquote.

"...We Refer You To The Jimmy Castor Bunch And Their Lyric Line..."Gotta Find A Woman...Gotta Find A Woman....Gotta Find A Woman....."

We ain't exactly Reader's Digest around here.

 

But, we do recognize the merits and benefits of increasing our word power.

 

Ergo...

 

par·a·dox

noun

noun: paradox; plural noun: paradoxes

1. a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

 

Admittedly, when seeking insightful and penetrating perspective on the current state of country music, the first research source that comes to mind is, generally, not People Magazine.

 

After all, there's the pre-conception that very little insight or penetration is going to be found in a publication offering up cover stories, complete with glossy photos, about Princess Kate's supposed baby bump.

 

But, son of a gun (or sum bitch, as traditional Tennessee expression would offer), right there, in plain sight, is a report on the said current state and its now not only obvious but blatantly obvious lack of acknowledgement of the attempted contributions of the estrogen side of 16th Avenue South.

 

 

 

Spend any time at all listening to country radio these days and the gender gap becomes clear. With the occasional exception of Miranda or Carrie, you'll be hard pressed to find a female voice on the air – or a song about something other than drinking on a dirt road/in a field/on the beach/in a truck.

And that gap on country airwaves seemed all the more vast after listening in at Keith Urban's All 4 the Hall benefit for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum last week. From hard-rocking Brantley Gilbert to Reba McEntire's traditional twang; from Urban's pop stylings to Mary Chapin Carpenter's Americana vibe; from Underwood's pipes to Kacey Musgraves's storytelling, the lineup was a reminder of how big a tent country music can be.

In that spirit, here's our call to country radio's gatekeepers: Keep that tent open wide! It's not just about getting more women's voices out there (though we should), it's about remembering how good the genre can be when it tells the many, nuanced stories of our lives rather than reducing everything to the bottom of a Dixie cup.

Here are six artists we want to hear more of: 

Kacey Musgraves Yes, she's been hyped – and deservedly so. But despite the Texan's meticulously crafted songs like "Merry Go 'Round" and "Follow Your Arrow" – and a sound that can only come from a honky-tonk-loving heart – country radio continues to look the other way.
Check Out: "It Is What It Is," a beautiful shrug of a song (co-written by Brandy Clark and Luke Laird) about resignation in a doomed relationship

 

 

 

 

Ashley Monroe Like Musgraves, she had one of last year's best releases with her Vince Gill-produced Like a Rose, but even with her pal Miranda Lambert singing praises and some Pistol Annies cred (she and Lambert form two-thirds of the group), Monroe still hasn't found a place on radio as a solo artist. It's our loss – just listen to her album's title song or the wicked humor of "Weed Instead of Roses."
Check Out: "Two Weeks Late," heavy on the pedal steel, it takes on "woe-is-me" with a wink.




Brandy Clark Already a hit-maker for other artists – she co-wrote Miranda Lambert's "Mama's Broken Heart" (with Musgraves and Shane McAnally) and The Band Perry's "Better Dig Two" – Clark saved some of her best work for last year's debut, 12 Stories. Lyrically witty (have a listen to her single "Stripes"), Clark has a voice that's rounded and rich. Her songs are ready-made for country radio, but you won't find her voice there.
Check Out: "Hold My Hand, " a vulnerable ballad about that moment when you meet your partner's former lover.






The three other artists mentioned in the People article can be found at the magazine website.

But these three examples more than illustrate the point, not to mention the aforementioned word with which we are increasing our word power today.

Clearly, any moron can tell that these three ladies, at the very least, are writing and singing the kind of stuff that deserves an audience, the kind of audience that is not only found online and/or in the Opry House seats, but also on the other side of the microphone from what's left of the live voices narrating your periodic journey through country music via your FM of choice.

Yet, turn on that chosen FM at any time day or night and the odds are staggeringly in your favor that what you will hear is yet another guy singing yet another song about yet another truck driving down yet another dirt road either coming from or heading too yet another party where there will be yet another keg of beer to ingest while enjoying the sensual visual delights of yet another glop, drop or stream of honey traversing the curvature of yet another woman's shapely ass.

And although you can't see what you're hearing while you hear it, the odds are equally in your favor that said guy singing said song will be attired in yet another t shirt, not necessarily color coordinated with his ball, train or hunting cap, most likely worn in a manner that would allow said singer to rush from his stage show to his off work time recreation of playing catcher on his favorite pick up team.

Put less verbosely, backwards.

Meanwhile, writers and singers and singer/writers like Musgraves and Monroe and Clark and their fellow non-fellas go on writing their songs, singing their songs, recording their songs while receiving rave reviews, clear and obvious live fan appreciation and zip zero nada in the way of radio airplay.

Well, as I, and many others, have written before as we traveled down this same dirt road, the fact is that we've traveled down this dirt road before.

And there really is nothing new to be said on the matter.

Because, the fact is that what we got here is not so much the ladies failure to communicate.

What we got here....is a dad gum mystery.

A mystery rooted in this unmistakable, undeniable, irrefutable truth.

Somebody is buying all that crap in a backwards ball cap.

And by somebody, I mean a lot of somebodies.

Trust me when I tell you that no deranged individual is sitting in any office of any or all radio station general managers, holding a gun (or guns, that is the right of all Americans, you know) to their head and threatening to remove said head from shoulders unless said station continues to play the dirt road/truck/party/honey dripped on ass playlist, the whole playlist and nothing but the playlist or so help them, God.

There is no need for that.

Because somebody is listening devotedly, even fanatically, to all that crap in a backwards ball cap.

And by somebody, I mean a lot of somebodies.

Therein lies the mystery.

If you read any comment section of any web article having to do with contemporary country music or if you should witness, even participate, in an actual conversation having to do with contemporary country music, you will be hard pressed to find anybody who will admit to liking all that crap in a backwards ball cap.

And by anybody, I mean everybody.

But somebody is buying it.

And by somebody......

Which brings us back to our good intentions to increase our word power.

No one seems willing to admit to liking it, everyone seems willing to complain about it, but the crap in the cap not only rules the radio roost, it's a smack down damn retro return to those glorious yesteryears of clubs that allowed men, all men and only men, so help them, God.

And the women were not only required, but expected, to stay home, stay quiet and/or stay pregnant.

While at the same time, writers and singers and singer/writers like Musgraves and Monroe and Clark and their fellow non-fellas go on writing their songs, singing their songs, recording their songs and receiving rave reviews, clear and obvious live fan appreciation.

But zip, zero, nada in the way of radio airplay.

It's an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, inside a box.

Or, at the very least...say it with me......

...a paradox.

For what it's worth, there is precedent for this kind of thing.

This kind of thing being defined as something that anyone who is asked expresses disdain, even contempt, for yet continues to flourish and succeed because somebody is buying it.

And by somebody, I mean a lot of somebodies.

Not just a little ironically, as it turns out, this particular something is not only female friendly, but as over loaded with estrogen as the country music charts are soaked with testosterone.

Only, in this case, crap would probably be spelled with a K.

People can't stand em, don't want em' and wish that they would just go away.

Country crap in a cap.

Keeping up with Kardashians.

Six of one.

But somebody is buying it.

And by somebody......

Sum bitch.