music

Really some things in the news are just ridiculous.

Prince's acclaimed performance included a guitar solo during the
"Purple Rain" segment of his medley in which his shadow was projected
onto a large, flowing beige sheet. As the 48-year-old rock star let
rip, the silhouette cast by his figure and his guitar (shaped like the
singer's symbol) had phallic connotations for some.

A number of bloggers have decried "Malfunction!" — including Sam
Anderson at New York magazine's Daily Intelligencer. Daily News
television critic David Bianculli called it "a rude-looking shadow
show" that "looked embarrassingly rude, crude and unfortunately placed."

You know, I noticed that. In fact, it was pretty obvious, when he changed guitars to use this wacky axe shaped like is Prince symbol, complete with an arrow point at the head--

Oh dear! A phallic symbol!

It's funny how there's all this fuss about this when the Super Bowl broadcast was littered with ads for violent television shows, violent movies -- and ads that were just violent.

The AP story by Jake Coyle tries to make the claim that the phallic imagery was accidental. Ha! He also claims:

Always eccentric, he famously changed his name to The Artist Formerly
Known as Prince, then to simply a symbol and finally back to Prince.

I suppose you wouldn't expect the Associated Press to point out that he did this because his record contract forbade him from using the name "Prince" when recording with a different label.

Is it just me, or are these new graphics and jingle on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer particularly cheesy or what? (Especially the split-screen interviews composite. Ick!) Perhaps they were afraid of coming across as too classy or intellectual? It all seems rather arbitrary to me.

The NSA is spying on you. We all know that ... now.

For Hollywood musicland, that's old hat.

Apparently, the Recording Industry Association of America is spying on you ... and your children ... and has no qualms about going after them to get to you.

The Big Four record labels are escalating their attack on Patti Santangelo, the New York mother who's so far the only person to stand up to them.

And they'll be using her children as weapons against her.

On Tuesday judge Mark D. Fox presided over a discovery hearing in Elektra v Santangelo and, "Elektra's attorneys have answered Patti's objections to their discovery questions," her lawyer, Jordan Glass, told p2pnet.

"They've started to push back aggressively. They're going after her children - and this time not directly so they can get around certain protections the children have. They had information about the children that wasn't public, or wasn't supposed to be public, and it's of great concern not only that that they were able to obtain it, but also that they wanted it.

"They're not treating this as a single case or as seeking a verdict for $3,500.00. They're treating this as a symbol for how the other cases will go and I hope everyone who reads this will recognize the serious impact this case could have on their children."

Oh, and lest we forget: All this is tax-deductible ... for the mega studios. For Mrs. Santangelo, defending herself has to come out of her after-tax income.

Reports p2pnet:

"This case is jeopardizing the actual well-being of children and you're going to see problems develop which will be far worse than the mere 'shakedown for money' ['settlements']," says Glass emphatically.

"As just one example, it was deeply unsettling for us to learn just how much personal, non-public information the RIAA had collected on Patti's children.

"All parents should be concerned and I think people have to know the implications.

"It's one thing to sue children directly. They get a lawyer, rules are established, the court might offer certain protections, etc, but when it's done through a back door - suing a parent to get information about a child - the child has no protections, especially when the plaintiff doesn't even have the decency to not publish personal information about the child.

"This, then, is going to become the new feeding ground for those who seek to exploit children, whether through improper contact or identity theft.

"This new class of child - scared and facing the federal legal system, with few protections and their personal contact and identification information, as well as their posted feelings, fears, desires and thoughts - is now exposed to the world for all to see.

"And exploit."

Of course, as we learned from Ronald Reagan, mothers of children are to be distrusted and condemned, while multinational corporations are to be praised for ... their family values? Oh, that's right: Their political campaign donations. So don't expect any help from our elected officials.

Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing notes some background:

The recording industry has escalated its attacks on a soccer mom whose PC may have been used to share music files by attacking her children. Westchester County's Patti Santangelo bought a PC for her kids that the RIAA claims was used to share copyrighted music, but Patti never used her PC for this, and there's no evidence that the files ever resided on her computer. Since she's innocent, Patti's refused to pay the labels' shakedown demand of $3500, making her the first RIAA victim to stand up for her rights.

The Sunday Question: How many PACs does it take for a multinational corporate empire to have more rights than human beings?

[My Blogrolling account has lapsed. A new arts blogroll is to come.]

One benefit from the holidays for me is having the time to just sit and read. I always skim through The New Yorker, plowing through Talk of the Town and and soaking in one or two articles and/or reviews that catch my interest. But it's usually a semi-distracted affair on my part, so I rarely even notice the ads.

I had time to start into this week's issue with some leisure, though, and that afforded me the pleasure of seeing a multi-page ad for Iconoclasts, a miniseries on Sundance Channel celebrating "innovators, ground shakers and rule breakers."

I couldn't help but notice that, out of the 12 iconoclastic movers and shakers profiled, only two are women -- actress Renée Zellweger and CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour.

Meanwhile, the male Iconoclasts featured are:

• Robert Reford (actor)
• Paul Newman (actor)
• Samuel L. Jackson (actor)
• Bill Russell (sports star)
• Tom Ford (fashion designer)
• Jeff Koons (artist)
• Brian Grazer (film producer)
• Sumner Redstone (CEO)
• Mario Batali (chef)
• Michael Stipe (rock star)

To be sure, many of these people have done much more than what they're known for. But let's face it, they're known for being actors and designers and so on.

So why aren't there more women? Yes, we live in a patriarchy and yes men dominate the arts, fashion and entertainment industries, but women account for 53% of the population and, in the creative arts industries, there certainly is not a dearth of female iconoclasts, is there? (Need I post a list?)

Are women deserving of only 16.67% of the honors? (Are Hispanics and Asians so undeserving of any mention? And what is Sumner Redstone doing in this show at all?)

If this were a Fox or NBC product, this kind of bias would hardly be remarkable -- in fact, it would be expected and insisted upon. But this is Sundance, which supposedly is about empowering disempowered voices and supporting progressive causes. With Iconoclasts, Sundance gets a failing grade.