AOL Comics.
Not long after Joe Quesada became Editor in Chief at Marvel, he started referring to their main rival, DC Comics, as "AOL Comics." See, DC is owned by Time Warner, who were actually purchased by AOL, although America Online is usually listed as a division of Time Warner. Quesada was looking to kick up a little dirt, stir up a little fight, by saying that DC was just one branch of a corporation, and that said giant corporation was just a business like any other, not a place that existed solely for the purpose of creating comics -- in other words, not like Marvel.
Granted, absolutely none of that was true, at least not from Marvel's side, and it hasn't been for years. But it was a myth that Marvel had done a great job of perpetuating, even after the disaster that was the 90's. Regardless of what they actually were, Marvel made it a point of acting like they were anti-establishment, that they were in the business of making comics and that was their only focus. They weren't like the other guys. They weren't sell outs and old men. Heck, there was a point when no one outside of the world of comics even knew who their biggest sellers were (a little team called the X-Men), and they suggested to their fans that that's exactly how they preferred it. DC's a cog; Marvel's all about the comics, man.
Again, it's kind of astounding that Marvel managed to maintain that image after the great speculator boom and bust of the 90's, of which Marvel played a huge role. And they've been a company like any other for years; one would be hard pressed to argue that even the Stan and Jack days were "all about the comics." But Marvel has always been able to sway public opinion better than Time Warner's comic book division. They held on to that image even while the X-Men, Spider-man, and Iron Man started selling out movie theaters. And it was a smart move by Quesada to try to recapture that image, because it's something that's always worked for them...even if it wasn't real.
There's no turning back now.
I have little worry that Marvel's publishing out put will change in any dramatic way. Part of the genius behind how Disney operates is that they have divisions of their company that can do things they can't. You're never going to see a Disney logo on a Miramax film, for example, but it's still technically theirs. Disney could never get away with publishing the types of comics that Marvel are currently putting out, but they don't have to. They continue to let Marvel do what it does, and, honestly, no one will associate that material with the people who produced Mikey or Donald. And that, of course, is the point.
But Marvel does lose what had been a rather long standing, self-created image. They are no longer rebels. Comics are not their bottom line. Their target demographic might stay the same (for now, at least -- how long until the higher ups at Disney want to know why their comic book division isn't selling better to girls?), but they've lost something...they've lost their righteous indignation, however flimsy it might have been to begin with. They can no longer play that card, at least not without looking like complete idiots.
There's something kind of sad about that, about a Marvel without it's swagger, or at least without one that you could actually believe in (even if it took some work).
I have no idea how this deal will play out, but I do know this: Marvel is very different than it was 24 hours ago, and that's a hard thing to wrap my head around.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The Biographical MIx, Part One: Introduction and 1990
I don't think I've ever known anyone who hasn't made a mix, be it a tape, a CD, or a playlist. I think it would weird me out to meet such a person, as if they lack some sort of basic human sense of adventure or curiosity. I would imagine they probably own every volume of "Jock Jams," which could count as a mix, but not one that they actually made.
I've made mixes for as long as...well, as long as music has been personal to me, which I'll get to in a moment. It wasn't until I moved to Los Angeles 7 years ago that I realized I'd begun making mixes on a regular basis -- like clockwork, almost.
While my original mixes were given random names (I had a mix called "Beige" at one point -- no, really), I soon started labeling them by time period. As I made a lot of mixes in college, I started naming them by season, since I a) live in Ohio and b) went to a college that was on the quarters system. The problem with this, however, is that I graduated from college 9 years ago.
I had a lot of free time and a lot of disposable income over my first years in Los Angeles, so I was listening to a lot of new music. At first, I tried to stick with using seasons to order them, but that proved hard to do, simply because winter spans two different years. So starting in 2004, I kept the quarters system from college, but incorporated it into a regular calendar: 2004 Part One would be January to March, Part Two would be April to June, Part Three July to September, and Part Four October to December.
And then, of course, I had to start doing a mix for each year as a whole -- a "best of," if you will. That was easy enough for the years where I was organized, but I certainly couldn't stop there. I wanted mixes going back as far as I could.
I say "as far as I could" because there got to a point where my year by year mixes would have become a basic Billboard Top 20 list. There were a lot of early years where I basically listened to the radio, and while those songs hold some nostalgia, I don't really consider them mine.
I discovered that my first year of honest music appreciation was 1990. This was the second half of 8th grade/first half of 9th grade. I'd dabbled in music I'd never really heard on the radio, but it wasn't until that year that I fully submerged myself.
My brother is to blame for that. He graduated from high school in the late 80's, heading off to college at a time when college music/college radio were becoming more and more important. Since he went to school in the same town we lived in, I could periodically head into his room and look through all of his tapes. I really didn't know who most of the bands were, but I gave all of them a chance.
Keep in mind, though, that I was also 14 when 1990 started, so the radio (and MTV) still played a big part in my life.
Also keep in mind that these are songs that I listened to in 1990 -- that doesn't necessarily mean the songs came out that year, just that I discovered it that year.
So, without further ado and in no specific order, here's my "Best of 1990" mix:
"Rock the Cradle of Love" by Billy Idol
"You Can't Touch This" by MC Hammer
"Poison" by Bel Biv Divo
"The Humpty Dance" by Digital Underground
"Blaze of Glory" by Jon Bon Jovi
"Suicide Blonde" by INXS
"More Than Words" by Extreme
"Joey" by Concrete Blonde
"Forgotten Years" by Midnight Oil
"Pure" by the Lightning Seeds
"Ball and Chain" by Social Distortion
"I'm Free"" by the Soup Dragons
"Personal Jesus" by Depeche Mode
"Birdhouse in Your Soul" by They Might Be Giants
"Roam" by the B-52's
"Orange Crush" by R.E.M.
"Here's Where the Story Ends" by the Sundays
I think you can actually see my slow transition away from "mainstream" music in 1990. I can actually remember friends of mine making fun of me at the time for some of the more obscure (then, at least) bands I'd started listening to.
That would change, of course, as there was grunge on the horizon...
NEXT: 1991
I've made mixes for as long as...well, as long as music has been personal to me, which I'll get to in a moment. It wasn't until I moved to Los Angeles 7 years ago that I realized I'd begun making mixes on a regular basis -- like clockwork, almost.
While my original mixes were given random names (I had a mix called "Beige" at one point -- no, really), I soon started labeling them by time period. As I made a lot of mixes in college, I started naming them by season, since I a) live in Ohio and b) went to a college that was on the quarters system. The problem with this, however, is that I graduated from college 9 years ago.
I had a lot of free time and a lot of disposable income over my first years in Los Angeles, so I was listening to a lot of new music. At first, I tried to stick with using seasons to order them, but that proved hard to do, simply because winter spans two different years. So starting in 2004, I kept the quarters system from college, but incorporated it into a regular calendar: 2004 Part One would be January to March, Part Two would be April to June, Part Three July to September, and Part Four October to December.
And then, of course, I had to start doing a mix for each year as a whole -- a "best of," if you will. That was easy enough for the years where I was organized, but I certainly couldn't stop there. I wanted mixes going back as far as I could.
I say "as far as I could" because there got to a point where my year by year mixes would have become a basic Billboard Top 20 list. There were a lot of early years where I basically listened to the radio, and while those songs hold some nostalgia, I don't really consider them mine.
I discovered that my first year of honest music appreciation was 1990. This was the second half of 8th grade/first half of 9th grade. I'd dabbled in music I'd never really heard on the radio, but it wasn't until that year that I fully submerged myself.
My brother is to blame for that. He graduated from high school in the late 80's, heading off to college at a time when college music/college radio were becoming more and more important. Since he went to school in the same town we lived in, I could periodically head into his room and look through all of his tapes. I really didn't know who most of the bands were, but I gave all of them a chance.
Keep in mind, though, that I was also 14 when 1990 started, so the radio (and MTV) still played a big part in my life.
Also keep in mind that these are songs that I listened to in 1990 -- that doesn't necessarily mean the songs came out that year, just that I discovered it that year.
So, without further ado and in no specific order, here's my "Best of 1990" mix:
"Rock the Cradle of Love" by Billy Idol
"You Can't Touch This" by MC Hammer
"Poison" by Bel Biv Divo
"The Humpty Dance" by Digital Underground
"Blaze of Glory" by Jon Bon Jovi
"Suicide Blonde" by INXS
"More Than Words" by Extreme
"Joey" by Concrete Blonde
"Forgotten Years" by Midnight Oil
"Pure" by the Lightning Seeds
"Ball and Chain" by Social Distortion
"I'm Free"" by the Soup Dragons
"Personal Jesus" by Depeche Mode
"Birdhouse in Your Soul" by They Might Be Giants
"Roam" by the B-52's
"Orange Crush" by R.E.M.
"Here's Where the Story Ends" by the Sundays
I think you can actually see my slow transition away from "mainstream" music in 1990. I can actually remember friends of mine making fun of me at the time for some of the more obscure (then, at least) bands I'd started listening to.
That would change, of course, as there was grunge on the horizon...
NEXT: 1991
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Talking Heads (aka Glenn Beck Is a Lunatic)
Remember the first Gulf War? Remember how everyone was just blown away by the amount of coverage we got from CNN? It was a golden age, really, when the 24 hour news network came to prominence. It was a time when it seemed like having such a creature around might be a good thing. For a country whose military actions were generally shrouded in mystery, the idea of being able to turn on your TV at any hour and get that kind of information was revolutionary, and this was before the internet was really a prominent fixture in our lives (I'll sidestep the fact that the second Gulf War was, in fact, just as shrouded in mystery as anything that came before cable news channels). CNN was a way of life back then. How could cable news possibly go wrong?
Of all its various sins, the 24 hour cable news channels' greatest might be the ascension of the talking heads from their former dwelling on AM radio to their now very common place appearance on TV. If it weren't for cable news, Bill O'Reilly would still be hosting a tabloid like "news" show and Keith Olbermann would still be covering sports.
Personally, I find talking heads to be more funny than upsetting. I also think there's a certain amount of talent in being a top line talking head. At the very least, you need to be able to work up righteous indignation night after night, usually about things that are either completely irrelevant or are taken completely out of context -- so far, in fact, that the talking head clearly knows that he/she is fabricating things. It takes some cajones to lie like that on a regular basis.
True credit, I suppose, should go to the people who write and produce these shows, as they're the ones who are picking and choosing the subject matter. They have an eye for the topics that will get them the most press, and that have enough nooks and crannies to allow for tall tales that their viewing audience will just eat up without question. Again, there's a certain skill required in all of this.
I say all that under the belief that there's no way that Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Lou Dobbs, et al actually believe everything they say. I say all this, in fact, fully believing that these people are smart enough to know that they are stoking very specific fires and that, ultimately, their places in history will be very, very small. I don't, for a single second, believe that any of them are complete honest; they are masters of spin, but I think they all know that.
Well, almost all of them.
Of the vast masses of talking heads that appear on our TVs and stream forth from our radios, there is one, above all others, that I am convinced is completely unaware of the game he is playing. I think he is really and truly insane, and the fact that he whole heartedly believes the things he says -- and says them because he's really thinking about them, not because he knows it will get him attention -- is just unbelievably frightening. I am, of course, referring to Glenn Beck. This would be the Glenn Beck who asked a newly appointed Congressman who just happened to be Muslim how we could trust him. This is the same man who started a series of segments about a possible future, one that pretty much any sane person would see as being entirely impossible. This is the same man who believes that our current president's actions are driven by one desire, and one desire only: reparations.
And that would be all well and good if I thought Beck was doing the dancing, spewing monkey routine like the rest of them. But it's not a routine for him. He's a believer.
That's the truly scary thing about cable news. The talking heads were one thing. But when we start getting believers on TV, that's when you know we're headed down a bad road.
Of all its various sins, the 24 hour cable news channels' greatest might be the ascension of the talking heads from their former dwelling on AM radio to their now very common place appearance on TV. If it weren't for cable news, Bill O'Reilly would still be hosting a tabloid like "news" show and Keith Olbermann would still be covering sports.
Personally, I find talking heads to be more funny than upsetting. I also think there's a certain amount of talent in being a top line talking head. At the very least, you need to be able to work up righteous indignation night after night, usually about things that are either completely irrelevant or are taken completely out of context -- so far, in fact, that the talking head clearly knows that he/she is fabricating things. It takes some cajones to lie like that on a regular basis.
True credit, I suppose, should go to the people who write and produce these shows, as they're the ones who are picking and choosing the subject matter. They have an eye for the topics that will get them the most press, and that have enough nooks and crannies to allow for tall tales that their viewing audience will just eat up without question. Again, there's a certain skill required in all of this.
I say all that under the belief that there's no way that Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Lou Dobbs, et al actually believe everything they say. I say all this, in fact, fully believing that these people are smart enough to know that they are stoking very specific fires and that, ultimately, their places in history will be very, very small. I don't, for a single second, believe that any of them are complete honest; they are masters of spin, but I think they all know that.
Well, almost all of them.
Of the vast masses of talking heads that appear on our TVs and stream forth from our radios, there is one, above all others, that I am convinced is completely unaware of the game he is playing. I think he is really and truly insane, and the fact that he whole heartedly believes the things he says -- and says them because he's really thinking about them, not because he knows it will get him attention -- is just unbelievably frightening. I am, of course, referring to Glenn Beck. This would be the Glenn Beck who asked a newly appointed Congressman who just happened to be Muslim how we could trust him. This is the same man who started a series of segments about a possible future, one that pretty much any sane person would see as being entirely impossible. This is the same man who believes that our current president's actions are driven by one desire, and one desire only: reparations.
And that would be all well and good if I thought Beck was doing the dancing, spewing monkey routine like the rest of them. But it's not a routine for him. He's a believer.
That's the truly scary thing about cable news. The talking heads were one thing. But when we start getting believers on TV, that's when you know we're headed down a bad road.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Los Angeles Redux
To twist a buzz phrase from a few months ago: Los Angeles is too big to succeed. In fact, I'm beginning to think the same applies to California, and perhaps the entire United States. I suppose there's some poetry to the fact that I came to this conclusion after visiting Boston, the place where this entire "United States of America" thing got started.
I really liked Boston. While I know I only got a partial picture of the city (I never saw the sections from "The Departed" or "Mystic River," if you will), it seemed to me like a combination between a giant college campus and the Universal back lot. It was absolutely amazing to be in a city that was so close contained, that seemed so...well, considered. And, of course, there was all the great history in the city something that, through no fault of its own, you won't find out here.
And Boston was clean! It kind of blew my mind that they just raised the sales tax in Boston while we were there -- to a whopping 6.25%, which is still 3.5% LOWER than California's, and yet their biggest city seemed like it was maintained much better.
I've now been to most of the major cities in America and I can, without hesitation, say that Los Angeles is the most ridiculous. I was actually kind of bitter when I came back here, and flying in to LAX did not help matters (LAX could be the most ridiculous airport in America).
Granted, Boston had a lot going for it that was circumstantial: 1) Nicole and I were there for a wedding, 2) It was summer time, not winter time, 3) Nicole and I were in dire need of a vacation, even a short one, 4) the people of Boston were very happy to see a Cleveland Indians' fan, as we'd just traded them Victor Martinez.
None of that, however, detracts from the things about Boston that made Los Angeles look so bad or, to be more accurate, the things about Boston that also exist in most other cities in America that make Los Angeles look so bad. You know, things like a sense of community, well defined neighborhoods, historical significance, public transportation, relatively friendly people, etc.
Los Angeles is just so large that it seems there's no rhyme or reason to the city. It's barely contained chaos. Even worse, there's no real way to fix this. Hollywood tried to secede from the city at one point, but I don't think that would help. I think the hot mess that is the sprawl of this city is just so uncontainable that even dividing it up into smaller cities would make no difference -- you'd just have smaller messes.
Los Angeles has two things going for it, in my mind:
1) I am enough of a sadist that the fact that I DO live in the most ridiculous city in the country gives me some strange sense of pride. Go figure.
2) As the majority of my last blog on Los Angeles will attest, this city is enjoyable because it's in Southern California. Not only do I not have to live through Ohio winters or Atlanta summers (two places I used to live), I have easy access to Disneyland and Universal Studios, which is a big plus for a guy who enjoys theme parks as much as I do. I also have a strange love of the desert, so being here is also good for that.
This city is ridiculous. It always has been and it always will be and, for now, it's my home. More to the point, though, the apartment I'm sitting in as I type this is my home. My life with Nicole and our two cats is my home. It would be nice to be able to expand that a bit, but in the end I still have it pretty good...
...even if I DO have to get into my car to go anywhere in this town.
I really liked Boston. While I know I only got a partial picture of the city (I never saw the sections from "The Departed" or "Mystic River," if you will), it seemed to me like a combination between a giant college campus and the Universal back lot. It was absolutely amazing to be in a city that was so close contained, that seemed so...well, considered. And, of course, there was all the great history in the city something that, through no fault of its own, you won't find out here.
And Boston was clean! It kind of blew my mind that they just raised the sales tax in Boston while we were there -- to a whopping 6.25%, which is still 3.5% LOWER than California's, and yet their biggest city seemed like it was maintained much better.
I've now been to most of the major cities in America and I can, without hesitation, say that Los Angeles is the most ridiculous. I was actually kind of bitter when I came back here, and flying in to LAX did not help matters (LAX could be the most ridiculous airport in America).
Granted, Boston had a lot going for it that was circumstantial: 1) Nicole and I were there for a wedding, 2) It was summer time, not winter time, 3) Nicole and I were in dire need of a vacation, even a short one, 4) the people of Boston were very happy to see a Cleveland Indians' fan, as we'd just traded them Victor Martinez.
None of that, however, detracts from the things about Boston that made Los Angeles look so bad or, to be more accurate, the things about Boston that also exist in most other cities in America that make Los Angeles look so bad. You know, things like a sense of community, well defined neighborhoods, historical significance, public transportation, relatively friendly people, etc.
Los Angeles is just so large that it seems there's no rhyme or reason to the city. It's barely contained chaos. Even worse, there's no real way to fix this. Hollywood tried to secede from the city at one point, but I don't think that would help. I think the hot mess that is the sprawl of this city is just so uncontainable that even dividing it up into smaller cities would make no difference -- you'd just have smaller messes.
Los Angeles has two things going for it, in my mind:
1) I am enough of a sadist that the fact that I DO live in the most ridiculous city in the country gives me some strange sense of pride. Go figure.
2) As the majority of my last blog on Los Angeles will attest, this city is enjoyable because it's in Southern California. Not only do I not have to live through Ohio winters or Atlanta summers (two places I used to live), I have easy access to Disneyland and Universal Studios, which is a big plus for a guy who enjoys theme parks as much as I do. I also have a strange love of the desert, so being here is also good for that.
This city is ridiculous. It always has been and it always will be and, for now, it's my home. More to the point, though, the apartment I'm sitting in as I type this is my home. My life with Nicole and our two cats is my home. It would be nice to be able to expand that a bit, but in the end I still have it pretty good...
...even if I DO have to get into my car to go anywhere in this town.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)