Zlisted

Sorry, Geeks: Tablet PCs Still Can't Beat Regular Pen and Paper

2008-02-23T15:14:00.000-08:00

By writing this article, I have probably put myself on the “hit list” of every Tablet PC enthusiast. James Kendrick runs a great site called jkOnTheRun. Hugo Ortega runs a site at Uber Tablet. There are also a lot of sites that support the UMPC (ultra mobile pc), a mini Tablet PC that has pretty much bombed despite some attractive features. Even though the Tablet PC platform that was introduced in 2002 has yet to become mainstream, it still has a strong cult following.

A Tablet PC is a notebook (sometimes slate-shaped) mobile computer. Its touch screen or digitizing tablet technology allows the user to operate the computer with a stylus or digital pen. Most tablets today allow the user to use the keyboard like a regular notebook, but also allow for the screen to be turned and “folded back” so the unit resembles a notebook. Tablet PC computers usually have less memory and omit other features which similarly priced notebooks have. They are somewhat popular in the business world, where people can substitute their tablet for pen and paper. But is it really a substitute?

I entered the Tablet PC world in May of 2006 when I purchased the first ultra mobile Tablet PC, the Samsung Q1. Writing on this was very uncomfortable since the letters would vector themselves into outrageous shapes if I happened to touch the screen while I was writing. The actual handwriting appearance was completely annoying as the writing would appear “squiggly” as I inked a word, but straighten itself out afterwards. The promising new Sony UX Micro PC series didn’t help the situation either. While the screen on these computers had a resolution that made everything look razor sharp, the actual digitizer (which operates at a different resolution) must have had a total resolution of about 5 pixels. Try inking on it and you’ll know what I mean.

At the end of the year, Fujitsu came out with what seemed to be the perfect pen and paper replacement: the P1610D tablet. Not only was this tablet about the size of a paperback book, but it also employed a technology that allowed the user to rest his/her palm on the screen while writing. Unfortunately, early releases of this tablet had calibration problems and when the processor was very active, inking became quite painful.

Luckily, Fujitsu also released the T4215 series, an active tablet (which requires a special kind of stylus pen) that has a gorgeous (but somewhat grainy) screen, DVD writer, and other attractive features. While the T4215 makes a great notebook (and it is priced far more than other notebooks with similar features), it is just too heavy to take with you and write whenever you want. Putting it on your lap is also the equivalent of going out in the hot sun and flashing a huge magnifying class on your legs. You get the point!

Two months ago, HP got into the game with its very affordable TX1000 Entertainment PC, which also works as a tablet. Everything looks great until you try and ink on this. The horrifying experience is equivalent to writing on a pad of paper with a pen that is running out of ink. After using this for an hour, I actually considered smashing it against the wall.

Luckily, Fry’s Electronics allows computer returns without a 15% restocking fee. I thought that perhaps I expected too much from this absolute piece of junk and was happy to find out that they had received five returns of the same exact computer that day. To be fair to HP, this computer is advertised as an “Entertainment PC” rather than a “Tablet PC.” It’s entertaining enough if you just make sure to look at the screen at a completely straight angle. Otherwise, the screen looks undersaturated.

My final attempt was an OQO Model 02, which I reviewed very favorably a couple weeks back. The fact that this mini computer didn’t have a slot for the stylus, as well as the slow processor creating lag time when inking, made this computer useless for my inking needs. While I was very impressed with the screen at first, I noticed it looked quite different at other angles. Luckily, someone on eBay bought it for almost the full amount I had paid. After shipping the unit to the lucky (as long as he’s not using it as a tablet) new owner, I felt a sense of frustration. “What’s next?” I asked myself and the answer didn’t hit me until I arrived at the office the next morning.

I noticed a plain white binder that almost seemed to be trying to communicate to me. Instantly, my mind had flashbacks of the days before I became a tablet geek: buying smooth, ball point pens; being able to read without having a screen glare back in my face; and knowing that all my writing would be there without having to press a “save” button.

I remembered how much more simple those days were, especially knowing that my notes would be right in front of me whenever I wanted. I converted my Windows Journal and Microsoft OneNote files into PDFs, and printed everything out that I needed for work. Luckily, I had easy access to a hole puncher. My next duty was to find folder tabs. I labeled one tab “admin,” the other, “tasks,” and another “general information.” I thought of a couple more categories but wanted to keep it simple. I then filed each page under the tab that matched it the most.

While rapidly snapping in the pages, I was reminded of how much time I’ve wasted this past year on Tablet PCs. My life could have been so much more productive had I not purchased so many tablets, lost sleep over the excitement of their arrival the next day, being frustrated because they didn’t meet my needs, and going through the hassle to return them. I decided to make up for that time by buying a beautiful Sony notebook, the new FZ140E, which I’ll review in another article. I can’t write on this thing, but for a price much cheaper than most of the tablets I purchased, it has a far better screen, a more useful keyboard, a faster DVD writer, more memory, better speakers, etc.

Some may argue that a pen and paper may be great, but they need something where they can view their most important information wherever they go. This, my friends, is what a Smartphone or PDA phone is for. Every cell phone carrier has at least five phones that have thumb keyboards, organizers, Internet access, email access, word processing, etc. I’m using a Motorola Q right now, which feels like a small bar of thin soap. Before that, I had the Treo 700p and countless others throughout the years. On all these phones, I have installed Microsoft Word-compatible software that allows easy synching between my mobile device and my laptop.

Now, I’ve decided to take it a little further. On the phone, I have put the following folders: Work; Personal; Bills; Blogs; Computer. I’m going to use these folders to put only the most important information I write down on pen and paper each day, such as passwords, information about one of my company's products, how to use certain features of all my graphic design software, etc. I will always have this information at my fingertips and on my computer, whenever I sync the phone to it. For those who want to be more on the cutting edge, you can now sync Microsoft OneNote files with your windows mobile device even adding pictures and sounds to your notes.

Tablet PC enthusiasts are living in a dream world. They may think they are cool by writing on a computer screen with a digital pen; it certainly garners them attention. They may think they are cool because they can use a computer without typing. They also think they are ahead of ordinary geeks because they can velcro their tablets to their car dashboards and use them as GPS machines, or even media players. What good is this if the battery life on most tablets running advanced applications lasts them about as long as Paris Hilton’s singing career? I understand their dream world as I was once a part of it. For now, just give me plain old paper and a nice pen!

Satire: Other "Illegals" Demand Amnesty

2008-02-23T15:04:00.000-08:00

originally published at blogcritics.org on May 22, 2007

This past week, Democrats and Republicans agreed on a deal that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, this amnesty has opened a can of worms. In the past day alone, pedophiles, murderers, and thieves who are either in prison or charged with crimes will organize and demand that they are given their due respect. NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) members will march this Saturday while NAAM (National Association of American Murderers) will march on Sunday. On June 8, the KCRA (Kleptomaniacs Civil Rights Association) will March and demand that they be allowed to steal. All three of these groups have been endorsed by Dan Rather, Rosie O’Donnell, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, and Guadalupe Santiago.

Steve Sodomheim, the director of NAMBLA, claims that it’s about time society accepts men who love boys. “We are not criminals; we are human!” Sodomheim says. During their march, they will demand that male teachers be allowed to have affairs with their male students as well as demand that all libraries be stocked with men-on-boy porn. They will also demand that government documents be written in their new man-on-boy language, Pedophilish. Although they have received endorsement from most Democrats, former Representative Mark Foley is the only Republican that has signed on, indicating his full support of NAMBLA.

O.J. Simpson, the new President of NAAM (National Association of American Murderers) claims that murderers aren’t really bad people. “We are actually doing a service to society by getting rid of people who don’t contribute,” he claims. When asked why some of the most promising people in society get murdered, he claimed, “Well, we are actually doing a service to them as well. Since they are good people, we send them to heaven early on.” Mr. Simpson and other members of NAAM are not only demanding that murderers be released from prison, but that they be allowed to murder at least three people a week.

“We do the jobs that nobody wants,” Zach Dahmer, another NAAM member declares. “I’m sure that there are a lot of people that others want to murder, but they are too afraid to!” Former Democrat Representative Gary Condit has donated over 5 million dollars to NAAM’s cause and will be participating in the march.

Winona Ryder started the KCRA (Kleptomaniacs Civil Rights Association) six years ago, after being arrested for stealing materials from a clothing store in Beverly Hills. “We are not actually thieves," Mrs. Ryder states. “We are taking back what rightfully belongs to us!” Aaron McDowell, a prominent member of CCRA , considers himself an American Indian given that his great grandfather was 1/8 American Indian.

“They stole from me centuries ago,” claims Mr. McDowell. “So, I’m just getting back at society for repressing me,” he continues. Oprah Winfrey has proudly given her support. KCRA plans a Kleptomaniacs Pride Week where they will walk into stores and steal whatever they want. Police officers who try and interfere will be punished. Alec Baldwin and Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, are the main organizers for this event.

True Americans, such as Bill O’Reilly, have been very vocal about the possible amnesty. “First we have illegal immigrants who broke our immigration laws being granted amnesty. Then, men who have sex with little boys want to roam free. Now, we have murderers and Kleptomaniacs demanding “respect?” What’s next, allowing sexual harassment at the workplace?" R&B singer R. Kelly is equally upset.

“Some of these people actually have sex with underage children and videotape it. This is wrong!” Mr. Kelly claims. Along with rapper Akon, R. Kelly has pushed Congress into passing harsher laws against people who have sex with minors. Perhaps R. Kelly and Akon might want to refrain. The Senate, dominated by Democrats such as Ted Kennedy, is working on the Pedophile Amnesty Bill as we speak.

What I Like About Tom Cruise

2008-02-23T14:58:00.000-08:00

originally published at blogcritics.org on May 10, 2007

Ever since jumping on Oprah’s couch like a maniac in June of 2005, Tom Cruise has become the most vilified actor in the world. When you hear the name “Tom Cruise” these days, it is most likely the topic of a joke. Never has an actor fallen from the top so quickly without committing a crime. What babies did one of the greatest actors of the past three decades murder in order to earn such harsh treatment?

Many point to Cruise’s involvement in the Church of Scientology as the main reason for his so-called downfall. How ironic it is that many of the same people who criticize his religious beliefs belong to mainstream religions in which children are molested, wars are started, and crazy ideals are shoved down our throats.

In comparison, Cruise’s beliefs that aliens are popping negative thoughts into our heads seems harmless. As a supporter of drugs for people who have mental illnesses, I do find his argument that these drugs are useless somewhat offensive, but I am not about to boycott his films. I didn’t see the last Mission Impossible movie because I think the series is boring and a waste of Mr. Cruise’s talents.

The one other issue people have with Cruise is his sexuality. Let’s face it: I think he is as queer as a three dollar bill, but if he wants to use women such as Mimi Rogers, Nicole Kidman, and Katie Holmes and throw them back to the prop department when he’s finished, that’s his business, not ours. Unlike many other (I think) closeted famous people, he was never on television speaking out against gay issues. I think perhaps he is just not ready to deal with his sexuality yet, so leave him alone!

Even if Cruise has shown an unlikable side of himself, it does nothing to erase his body of work, which is very impressive: Risky Business, Top Gun, The Color of Money, Rain Man, Born on the Fourth of July, A Few Good Men, Jerry Maguire, and Collateral. He brings charisma and feeling to all his characters in a way that most actors can only dream of. Even such poorly scripted movies, such as Minority Report and War of the Worlds, are only watchable because he is in them – so why the backlash?

Cruise has entered the Britney Spears, Ben Affleck, Michael Jackson, J-Lo, and Madonna Celebrity Backlash Zone where people love to take entertainers, turn them into icons of an almost Godlike status, and then drop them like a ball of fire. It’s a fun sport for the general public, but can be emotionally draining for the star that is involved. Cruise may be everybody’s whipping target now, but you can almost bet Brad Pitt will replace him soon. Who will we backlash after that in order to set off our secret desires of seeing a famous person fall - Tom Hanks?

What happened with Cruise is simple: we liked him and wanted him to succeed. Then, he became too successful. We looked at him and, instead of feeling proud of him we felt envy. Many looked at their own miserable lives and realized they have not set their goals or used their talents in the way Cruise has. We had to find a flaw in him (Scientology) and blow it way out of proportion in order to make him look bad. Congratulations, we can all now feel so much better about ourselves!

OQO Model O2: A Mobile Geek's Dream Come True

2008-02-23T14:47:00.000-08:00

Originally published at Blogcritics.org on May 2, 2007

Handheld computing devices have been around for the longest time, even though they didn’t become mainstream until the later part of the 1990s. Remember the Apple Newton, which was supposed to recognize your own handwriting and substitute for a personal assistant? Remember the Windows CE computers of the early 90s that were advertised as tiny computers that you can actually put in your pocket, despite the fact the battery life was awful and they hardly contained any memory?

In the late 1990s, the PDA (personal digital assistant) was mainstreamed and they were developed enough to the point where they actually became helpful. Then, in 2000, the groundbreaking Ipaq Pocket PC was released, with a Windows like operating system and wireless capabilities that made communication a lot easier. Although these devices were useful, they were, in no way, a substitute for a real pocket sized computer that you can have access to whenever you need it.

In 2004, Sony released its U Series paperback book sized computers that were eye candy for geeks and love at first site for mobile professionals. This stylus enabled Windows XP computer ran on either a Celeron 900 MHz (U50) or Pentium M 1GHz Centrino processor (U70), a 20 gig hard drive and 256 or 512 megs of RAM. I used it as a portable video player, which was great because you can run almost any type of video file in Windows XP. However, it wasn’t perfect. As with other mobile devices, battery life was less than optimal and the passive digitizer certainly wasn’t made for note taking.

In the past year, several new UMPC (Ultra Mobile Portable Computer) devices have been introduced. The first one to come to the market was the Samsung Q1 which seemed like the dream device when initially looking at it and listening to the excellent portable speakers, but ultimately failed its target audience. Not only is the battery life on this device about as long as William Hung’s musical career, but it screams for a thumboard since the tablet pc input is pretty much useless. Luckily, Samsung is addressing these issues on their new device, which should be available in the next month.

In mid-2006, Sony released its UX series, which had an absolutely beautiful screen, decent Intel Core Solo processor, and came with an excellent docking station that actually made the computer useful as a desktop replacement. During my brief affair with the UX380 (the one with Windows Vista), I was able to capture video and edit it with no major problems. Pretty impressive computer, right? Unfortunately, Sony forgot that people might want to actually type on this thing and included a non-tactile feedback thumboard that is not only useless, but also painful to use. One would think that Sony would be the first manufacturer to get the ultra mobile computer completely right, but they completely jumped the shark on this one.

In late 2004, a San-Francisco based company, OQO, released the first actual PC computer that one can fit into a pocket. It featured a very slow 1 GHz Transmeta Crusoe processor, 20 GB hard drive, and 256 MB of RAM. It included USB 1.1, FireWire 400, a headphone port, and a built-in microphone, integrated 802.11b wireless radio, as well as Bluetooth. This OQO used a magnetic stylus with a magnetically sensitive 800x480 transflective screen. Some reviewers complained about the lack of power and memory while others, who didn’t expect this device to actually replace their other PCs, were fascinated.

The OQO model 01+ was announced and released on September 27, 2005. Representing an incremental update to the model 01, the OQO model 01+ featured a 30 GB hard drive, 512 MB of RAM, USB 2.0, and an internal speaker. It also added support for portrait display mode (480x800) and had a redesigned screen bezel intended to improve the accuracy of its tablet. Still, people asked for more power and just recently, OQO has answered the dreams and prayers us mobile enthusiasts everywhere.

The OQO Model 02 was recently released to the public and demand has been so high that many distributors have not been able to fulfill preorders that were taken since January. This item comes in many flavors with the lowest cost model having a 1.2 Ghz Via processor, 512 mb ram, 30 gb hard drive, and running Windows XP Home Edition while the highest costing model has a 1.5 gh Via processor, 1gh ram, 60 gb hard drive, Sprint or Verizon high speed EVDO wireless capabilities, and running Windows Vista Business. All models feature built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth wireless capabilities.

I have a higher end model which comes with Windows XP Professional and Sprint EVDO. Even though it took hours to upgrade my new OQO Model 02 to Windows Vista Business, the results are spectacular. I don’t recall being this fascinated by a device since getting the very first iPod. This device has not only become my email and web browsing machine, but an excellent portable video player (with accepts video files though my Tivo), an excellent notetaking machine (you will need to buy your own Wacom enabled pen), an excellent mp3 player, and a great photo viewer as well.

While the OQO Model 02 may not run as fast as the new Sony UX series, this machine is far more useful because of its excellent thumboard, the best one I’ve seen yet. Not only is there great tactile feedback while pressing the buttons, but there are also separate buttons for numbers. Best of all, you don’t have to hold two keys when thumbing in an exclamation mark, question mark, etc. The “sticky keys” feature is already enabled so you press the function (or shift key) once, then press the key for your punctuation mark, function, etc.

One of the reasons that Ultra Mobile PCs have not been successful is because the screen size is usually too small for the eyes. On the OQO Model 2, you can easily zoom in on the screen when you need to. However, I find that I don’t have to do this. Windows Vista has a lot more features that are mobile friendly, including a feature that easily adjust the font size for the screen. With the new Internet Explorer 7, you can easily adjust the zoom level by pressing control and the “+” key. You can also permanently set the zoom level to anything you want on Internet Explorer. I find that the 115% zoom level works best on this.

Another problem with Ultra Mobile PCs has been that they heat up so badly that they feel more like portable heaters than portable computers. I have not had any major heat issues with the OQO Model 02 yet. It does get a little hot, but not uncomfortably so. To fix this problem, however, OQO had to include a high powering fan that sounds like a mini hair dryer when the processor is fully cranked up. This bothered me at first, but I have become very immune to the sound. Others may not.

OQO deserves a lot of credit for creating the first portable computer device that is not only useable, but can fit in your pocket as well. However, there are small improvements that can be made. Since the OQO Model 02 works best as a pen enabled device, you would think that there would be a slot on the device to put the pen on, but there isn’t.

Perhaps OQO needed to sacrifice some things to make this device as portable as possible, but I truly miss the pen slot and have lost my expensive Wacom pen at times. There have also been some issues that OQO Quality control could have prevented had they not been in such a rush to get this device out to the market. Several people have complained that their batteries either do not fit, or come off easily, from the back. I have easily fixed mine by doing some slight surgery on the metal latch it is attached to. However, one should not have to do this for a $2000 device!
There has also been some complaints about the docking station, which will run you a couple hundred dollars extra, not working. Most likely, these issues will be sorted out very soon and only people, such as myself, who jump on new technology the day it becomes available will have to deal with this.

In summary, the OQO Model 02 may be extremely expensive, but one can make great use of the money he/she spends on it: the pen capabilities will help keep you organized; the interface is very user friendly; it makes a great entertainment device; and the OQO Model 02 will help improve productivity in your business. Though it is extremely hard to find, Paul Maldonado, as well as the rest of the staff, at RCS Experience in NYC are very helpful, reliable and can have it shipped to you overnight with a variety of configurations. Thanks to OQO, all the “geeks” of the world can finally take a bow.

Rosie O'Donnell's Fascinating Oral Diarrhea

2008-02-23T14:35:00.000-08:00

Originally published at Blogcritics.org on April 25, 2007

Rosie O’Donnell is one of the most disturbing, yet fascinating personas that ever existed. She pisses people off who deserve to be pissed off: Rupert Murdoch, Bill O’Reilly, George W. Bush, so-called “President of the Catholic League” William Donahue (a man who would be pissed off at almost anything), Donald Trump, Michelle Malkin, and many others.

This is not to say Rosie is completely innocent. She has what my family refers to as “oral diarrhea,” a disease my mother has embarrassed us with for years. People who have oral diarrhea, unlike normal thinking people, can’t stop themselves from saying whatever they are thinking.

There’s a part of the brain that filters thoughts out. This brain function doesn’t work with people like Rosie O’Donnell or my mother. It could get her in big trouble. This certainly hurt Imus, Michael Richards, and possibly Mel Gibson. Alcoholism played a more important role in Gibson’s rants, but oral diarrhea and alcoholism sometimes go hand in hand.

It is also obvious that Rosie O’Donnell, like millions of other Americans, suffers from depression. She is unable to sit still without opening her mouth and she is very irritable. Her moods jump from high to low in almost a minute. What’s fascinating about Rosie’s depression is that instead of self-loathing, which many people with depression experience, she loves herself a little too much. She especially loves to hear herself shout and tear down others who disagree with her. This was evident by her treatment of Tom Selleck, a member of the National Rifle Association, back in 1999.

Despite her odd behavior, Rosie O’Donnell is both entertaining and educating to watch. From loudly criticizing Elizabeth Hasselbeck for her age (she’s too young) to her 9/11 conspiracies, Rosie brings out the best and worst in all of us. She says what many of us are thinking, but are afraid to say.

At times, she unfairly represents liberals — such as her recent mocking of Chinese people as well as ridiculously accusing Kelly Ripa of being a homophobe — but she does what very few talk show hosts do: she makes you think! Even if you disagree with her, discussing Rosie can bring up some very long and interesting discussions.

If you are not an admirer of Rosie's big mouth, you have to admire her actions. She risks her career in order to live her life the way she wants. She was America’s greatest sweetheart in the mid and late 1990s. In the early part of the decade, she left her very successful show because she was sick of living a “lie,” even though most rational people already knew she was gay.
The wing nut Republicans, who have more respect for serial killers than people who happen to be gay, condemned her.

Even if you don’t agree with gay marriage, she had the guts to speak for ousted families and their children. Even if you don’t agree with gay culture, she showed that, like Ellen, being gay doesn’t mean you can’t have a successful family and career. Perhaps people like Republican Idol Mark Foley and Family Values Military Man, Cpl. Matt Sanchez, would have had an easier time in life if they had taken cues from Rosie.

Rosie deserves all the success she’s had over the past fifteen years. My only fear is that she doesn’t know where the line is drawn with what’s acceptable in her comments. We live in a society where people like to take others’ comments, whip them out of context (hello, Imus), and destroy that person with McCarthyist-like actions. She has already jumped on the line with her recent comments about 911. I can only hope she doesn’t pass the line because, once she does, there are many people waiting to destroy her – and television without Rosie O’Donnell would be very empty and depressing.

Music Trivia For Those With No Lives: Hootie's Bad Review Gets Critic Fired

2007-04-22T16:05:00.000-07:00

Do you actually think that every good or bad review you read of an album is genuine? We all know that some critics are predisposed to dislike a certain artist, so they are bound to give that artist a bad review. It's hard to be objective so there isn't anything morally offensive about that.

There is something offensive, however, if a record company arranges a good review with a magazine. Such is the case with Hootie and The Blowfish's Fairweather Johnson, which was released in Spring of 1996. The newly hired editor of Rolling Stone magazine, Jim DeRogatis, decided to be rather honest about his review, not realizing that he was going against Rolling Stone's prearanged deal with Atlantic Records. Rolling Stone head Jann Wenner, however, was furious that DeRogatis didn't write the originally planned good review of a band who's previous album had sold more than 10 million copies. Not only was DeRogatis's review replaced with a more favorable one, but the sometimes psychotic (but always fun to read) music critic was instantly shown his way out the door.

Jim DeRogatis was employed again at the Chicago Sun-Times. It appears that his inuition about Fairweather Johnson was correct since not only did the album completely bomb on the charts, but turned the band Hootie and The Blowfish into a complete joke. Rolling Stone Magazine, once the "it" magazine of the music world, has also become a joke.

Music Trivia For Those With No Lives: George Michael's Deadly "I Want Your Sex."

2007-04-08T22:34:00.000-07:00

Would you believe that a song like this would piss off conservatives so much that they would send death threats to both George Michael and Columbia records? Then again, this was 1987. Ronald Reagan was president and Jerry Falwell was one of the most respected men in America.

George Michael's "I Want Your Sex" shocked radio listeners. Columbia thought they had originally made a mistake because there were several radio stations who wouldn't play the song. It was kind of surprising given that Samantha Fox had just released "Touch Me" six months earlier. In any case, conservatives targeted George Michael and his record company. The death threats were never made public for obvious reasons, but radio station managers had to be made aware of what was happening. The situation got so bad that Columbia was going to pull the single, as well as the video that George Michael made of the song (a heavily edited version was eventually released).

The "I Want Your Sex" single, however, started to grow on people. The radio stations that played the song showed excellent call-out research. The song was the number one requested song on almost every station it was played on. The money that was to be made on this single was certainly more important than any death threats - at least that was the mindset of record exectutives at Columbia. The "I Want Your Sex" single climbed all the way to number 2 on Billboard's Hot 100 despite being banned by several radio stations. In reality, the song should have been number one for several weeks.

"I Want Your Sex" became the first of several hit singles from George Michael's Faith album, released in the Fall of 1987. It turned George Michael into the biggest singing sensation in the world. He far outsold Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen, who also released albums in the Fall of 1987. Unfortunately, George Michael has never come close to matching the worldwide success of the Faith album.

Music Trivia For Those With No Lives: 1986 - The Year of Madonna Rejections

2007-04-08T22:08:00.000-07:00

Don't get the wrong idea from the title; 1986 was a very profitable year for Madonna because of her mega platinum True Blue album. But it wasn't all roses. The film Shanghai Surprise was an emotional and career disaster for Madonna. As mentioned before, Phil Collins, along with Atlantic Records, bowed out of the sountrack project once word got out on how much of a disaster the film was.

But Shanghai Surprise wasn't the only Madonna disaster that year. Luckily, this disaster got put off for another year when there would be so much Madonna overexposure that nobody would notice. It was a remix album Madonna and Warner Brothers had planned for Christmas of 1986 titled You Can Dance. Madonna had recorded a song for True Blue called "Spotlight," which she thought was single material, but Warner Brothers thought didn't fit the album. They decided it would fit the new remix album perfectly. Warner Brothers trusted Madonna with her instincts on this remix album, but Madonna just handed this project off to remixers and wasn't really involved.

Warner Brothers heard the album in the Fall of 1986 and were disgusted, to put it lightly. They thought the remixes sounded like a bunch of pots and pans crashing, along with broken motors. Madonna didn't care for it much either, but considered it an easy way to fill her record deal. Both parties agreed, however, that Madonna was riding too high at the time to risk anything. "You Can Dance" was eventually released in November of 1987, when Madonna didn't have much to risk. There was so much Madonna overexposure at the time (Madonna just finished a worldwide tour, released a movie, and had single releases all throughout the year) that a flop wouldn't get much notice. Till this day, the "You Can Dance" album still hasn't been noticed much. Still, there should have at least a warning label that warned fans that some of their favorite tracks would be completely destroyed.

Music Trivia For Those With No Lives: Was Whitney Houston Really "Eating Out?"

2007-04-07T13:20:00.000-07:00

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, rumors spread everywhere that Whitney Houston was having an affair with her executive assistant, Robyn Crawford. There were rumors of them having more than a professional relationship after recording sessions. I'm sorry to hurt all you gossip hounds, but the rumors simply were not true.

Being gay in the 1980s could have easily destroyed someone's career. Whitney Houston, known for her "family values" image, was a target for people who loved to see stars rise, then instantly fall. Surprisingly enough, however, the rumors didn't start from those people; they were started by people who worked for her own record company, Arista.

Many people at Arista thought that Whitney Houston was unfairly favored by record boss Clive Davis and there were far more talented musicians on the label who deserved just as much, if not more, attention than Whitney Houston. She had the pipes, but "nothing else" as many Arista employees believed. An Arista employee contacted the Enquirer and spilled the "so-called" beans. This employee, who can't be named for legal reasons, was instantly fired when the rumors were linked to him.

Many of Whitney's detractors were hoping that the gay rumors would end her career. But in the 1990s, being "gay" became a lot less of a curse and that didn't really even matter anymore, because Whitney married Bobby Brown. We all know what happened after that, so perhaps it would have been better if Whitney did develop a sexual relationship with Robyn Crawford. But she never did, and that's a fact.

Music Trivia For Those With No Lives: Phil Collins Almost Stayed Home in 1986

2007-04-05T22:52:00.000-07:00

No Jacket Required, the solo album from Phil Collins that was released in early 1985, produced some huge hits that year: "One More Night," "Sussudio," and "Don't Lose My Number." Atlantic Records wanted to call it quits after "Don't Lose My Number." They didn't want Phil Collins to burn out. After all, he was also at the top of the charts with the single "Separate Lives," in which he dueted with Marilyn Martin for the White Nights soundtrack.

Atlantic Records was originally going to do the soundtrack for 1986's Shanghai Surprise, starring Madonna and Sean Penn. Phil Collins wrote a song called "Opium Eyes" before even seeing the film. Rumor had it that Phil Collins wanted to at least see the film before he recorded the song. Director James Goodard, however, was too embarrassed to show the film. The buzz about the film was so bad that even Atlantic Records scrapped the project.

Even though the No Jacket Required project was put to rest, Phil Collins became angry that he was duped into the Shanghai Surprise project. It was because of this project that he agreed to put the No Jacket Required album to rest and now, he felt cheated. He demanded that Atlantic release his favorite song from the album, "Take Me Home," and they complied. However, they refused to budget the video for the song. Phil Collins paid for the video himself, which was a great idea. Both the "Take Me Home" single and video were huge hits at radio and MTV.

Music Trivia For Those With No Lives: Michael Jackson "King of Pop" Flop

2007-04-05T22:40:00.000-07:00

In the 1980s, there were few pop stars hotter than Michael Jackson. His albums Off The Wall, Thriller, and Bad sold several million copies in the United States alone. Did Michael's success get to his head?

In October of 1991, Michael was readying his new release "Black or White" for radio stations. The promo CD single was packed with a letter indicating that the only way radio stations could play the song is if they refer to Michael as "The King of Pop." At the time, I was wondering why they would actually send out the promos in the first place if radio airplay was contigent on Michael being referred to as "The King of Pop." But what's even worse is that most radio programmers complied with the request.

Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile, right? When Michael readied his second single from the Dangerous album, "Remember the Time," radio programmers were told that he should be called "The King of Rock, Pop and Soul." There was a brewing Michael Jackson backlash at the time, so few complied. But Michael Jackson is often referred to as "The King of Pop," so his pathetic marketing campaign worked. Now, protect your teenage children. Judging from his recent adventures, Jacko should just be referred to as "The King of Poop."

Music Trivia For Those With No Lives: Bruce Springsteen: Born In The USA's Lost 8th Single

2007-04-05T22:12:00.000-07:00

Those of you who know me can easily assume that I'm no Bruce Springsteen fan: I believe he has turned into a socialist who exploits social causes for cash. I used to be a fan, but completely turned on him when he released the anti-cop "41 Shots" I thought the song was completely insulting to the NYPD and it was even more interesting that Bruce Springsteen offered a pathetic explanation of the song only after the NYPD became heroes because of their 911 efforts. But I'm not going to hold anything against people who still are fans. I used to work in the industry and have some great, useless information that will get Springsteen fanatics aroused.

In 1986, Bruce's Born In The USA album (released in 1984) scored a record breaking 7th Top Ten single, "My Hometown." The only other artist to score 7 top ten singles from one album was Michael Jackson. Anyhow, Columbia records was all ready to release Bruce's 8th single, "Bobby Jean." I don't remember if it was previously released as a B side to another one of his singles or not, but record companies started to release "previous B sides" as singles. Promos of the single were ready to be sent out to radio stations in early March of 1986. Bruce Springsteen and his management (don't remember who his manager was at the time) decided, the very day before the single went out, that it was time to call it quits for a short while. Bruce was afraid of radio ovexposure and realized the only way he could continue his longetivity was to take a break from the airwaves. His next single, "War," wasn't released until the end of the year.

Why Are We Enjoying Britney's Downfall?

2007-02-24T23:38:00.000-08:00

Building up celebrities and then dropping them deep in the ground is a favorite pastime of many Americans. 1n 1999, Britney was our favorite new pop star with her number one hit, "…Baby One More Time." She became the idol of millions of teens all over the world and continued to have hit single after hit single. Sure, some ripped on her singing, her sometimes robotic songs, and her silly dance routines, but she wasn't the demonized person that she has come to be. Where did it go wrong and why do we love seeing Britney's self destruction?

I would say the Britney backlash had its origins when she performed "I'm a Slave for You" at the MTV Video Music Awards in 2001. Innocent, sexy Britney turned into sleazy (but still sexy) Britney. The album this single came from, Britney, didn't have the impact of her past albums. Then, Britney did the ultimate no for a pop diva: she released a movie, Crossroads, which didn't exactly win rave reviews. Crossroads was actually a decent, fun film. Still, we hate our pop divas to be movie stars: just ask Mariah Carey or Madonna!

In 2003, Britney went from being sleazy to being outrageously raunchy. Like Janet Jackson, she was going to strut her true stuff now that she was an adult. She kissed Madonna at the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards (Christina did too, remember?) during a performance of "Hollywood." She released her best album to date, In the Zone, with overly sexual themes. The killer dance track, "Toxic," became a top ten hit in America and a number one hit throughout the world. In The Zone sold around 3 million copies in the U.S.A, a very respectable amount considering the state of the record industry. Still, many critics and music industry insiders were happy to call Britney's career "over with." They couldn't stand to see a pop star, who was predicted to fail after her first album, still score hits.

Britney seemed to be caving into the pressure. In early 2004, she briefly married her childhood friend, Jason Alexander, for fifty-five hours and declared afterwards, "I wanted to see what it was like to be married." This mock marriage earned the condemnation of people everywhere. Perhaps she thought she could win the public approval if she entered a "true" marriage. By September of 2004, she married Kevin Federline, a man who would further tarnish Britney's reputation by convincing her to do a television reality series, Britney & Kevin: Chaotic, which drew laughs from viewers but not for the reasons the Federlines wanted.

One would think that the birth of her son, Sean Preston, would have helped her image, but that wasn't the case. Soon, Britney was seen by most as "Mommy Dearest," especially when she was caught driving with her baby unrestrained on her lap. Britney tried to do damage control with The Today Show's Matt Lauer, but she came off looking like a trailer park has-been who clearly was losing her mental stability. She had her second son, Jayden James Federline, in September of 2006. Many felt sorry for the newborn given that he was being raised in an unstable home, or several homes.

When Britney filed for divorce in November of 2006, many were rooting for her. They respected her for trying to regain her independence. Her "comeback" became the hot topic of blogs everywhere. But the comeback lost momentum after Britney Spears appeared in several photos without her panties. Instead of looking sexy, it looked desperate. Fans started filling Britney's message boards, telling her to put clothes back on.

This last week, we've seen the worst of Britney. Hours after rumors that Britney had entered an off-shore drug rehab, Britney was photographed at a salon in Sherman Oaks after shaving her head. She then decided to get multiple tattoos. On Tuesday, February 20th, 2007, Britney readmitted herself to a California treatment facility. A statement by her manager read, "We ask that the media respect her privacy as well as those of her family and friends at this time."

Within the past couple days, public dissatisfaction with Britney has reached it's highest. From radio commenters hoping she'll become the next "Anna Nicole Smith," to religious leaders making her the poster girl for all evil in this world, the reaction to Britney's downfall has become absolutely pathetic. Throughout listening to all the news stories on the television set and reading Internet blogs, you would think that there would be people hoping for Britney to pull through. Unfortunately, there is nothing but hate. It's as if Britney killed a child of theirs. Could we be punishing Britney because she exposes something in ourselves we don't like? None of us are morally perfect, but it is certainly fun to say we are and then bash those who screw up. Could we be punishing Britney because we're jealous? Lets face it, how many of us ever wanted to be famous? Britney, over the past decade, has become the symbol of fame. Perhaps we just couldn't live vicariously though her, like we do other stars.

We love to see our superstars scream, cry, overdose on drugs, have mental breakdowns, etc. It makes us feel so good. But we have to ask ourselves why? There seems to be a void in us that trashing a celebrity fills. It's a void of extreme insecurity. If we live our lives to our fullest, achieve what we can without blaming people on our shortcomings, and get to the point where we feel comfortable in our own skin, we can then ignore celebrity breakdowns. If we can't ignore them, then perhaps we can wish all the best for the rehab celebrity of the moment instead of turning their downfalls into victories for us.

Bridge To Terabithia: Not Just For Kids

2007-02-24T23:32:00.000-08:00

Originally Published on Blogcritics.org February 19, 2007

I’ll never forget reading this book with my sixth grade English class during my brief stint as a public school teacher in the late 1990s. Although I absolutely loved working with these kids, most of them came from families that didn’t value reading, or education in general. But seeing their faces glow with happiness and frown with sadness while reading this book was a very memorable moment during my unmemorable teaching experience. This is why I had high hopes for Bridge To Terabithia, the movie.

The movie does great justice to this book, except for taking the imagination sequences a little too far at times. But what really struck me about the whole experience is that this definitely isn’t just a “kid’s” movie. As an adult, this movie will bring you back in time to your first elementary/junior high school crush, your dealings with insecure kids, your thinking that all adults are evil, and the use of your imagination to escape hard times. Most importantly, this film will bring you back to the first time you had to deal with loss and the way you handled it.

Josh Hutcherson effectively plays the main character, Jesse Aarons, who comes from a struggling family. He represents the type of boy that most girls had a crush on in elementary/junior high school, unless you were raised in Beverly Hills. His facial expressions (which we see in many close-ups) are very effective, especially in the race scenes. Bailey Madison plays his little sister and represents the little sister we either had or always wished we had.

The Oscar nomination potential of this film belongs to AnnaSophia Robb, who plays Leslie Burke, the girl who, along with Jesse Aarons, creates the fantasy land of Terabithia. Through her voice, motions, and expressions, she effectively brings out the same Leslie Burke that we fell in love with in the book. She is exactly like the character we all imagined when reading the book, something that can’t be completely said about the rest of the cast. Her most memorable scene in the film is when she talks to Jesse Aarons about how she found out that Janice Avery, one of the film's villains, lives in an abusive household.

There are other perceived villains of this film besides Janice Avery. But what the film (and book) do so well is show that these characters aren’t really villains. Janice Avery is only a bully because she’s taking out her child abuse on other kids. Jesse’s father, played by Robert Patrick, is not the typical “redneck” father who doesn’t understand his son, as we see towards the end of the film. Mrs. Meyers (played by Jen Wolfe) is not the typical old teacher who can’t identify with kids. One of the main themes of this movie is that sometimes, people aren’t villains; they are simply humans.

The only part of the story that doesn’t completely hold up is when Jesse’s hot teacher, Ms. Edmons (played by Zooey Deschanel), takes Jesse out, alone, to the museum on a Saturday afternoon for a “sudden” field trip. This immediately brings up thoughts of, well... you know. When Katherine Paterson wrote this book, perhaps this situation wasn’t as fraught with other meanings as it is now.

Overall, Bridge to Terabithia is a movie experience that can barely be topped in this day and age of poorly manufactured films. It is not only a great experience for both adults and kids, but makes each individual question values of love, forgiveness, religion, fantasy, and death.

Bruce Springsteen: The Falling

2007-02-24T23:23:00.000-08:00

Originally Published on Blogcritics.org February 18, 2007
Out of anything I've ever written, this has caused the most controversy. Somehow, Bruce Springsteen fans got a hold of my email address, phone number, etc. and were even sending my death threats! I don't regret putting Bruce Springsteen down because he is not God. However, I do think I could have made some of my points without sounding like a mental hospital patient. What do you think?

Bruce Springsteen (along with Bono) has always been the most overrated musician in musical history: the sounds that come out of his mouth when he’s singing sound like somebody masturbating with finger knives; his guitar playing is just average; and even though he has written some good songs, many of them are also repetitive. Okay, Bruce, we know that Bobby did this and Bobby did that. We know Bobby hates police officers and Bobby wants everything. How many times do you use the Bobby cliché in your music? And don’t even get me started on the “Mary” thing!

It would be ignorant, even among Bruce’s most harsh detractors, not to admit that the so-called Boss has come out with some memorable albums: Born To Run; Nebraska; Born in The USA; and his last relevant album, Tunnel of Love. Since then, however, Bruce Springsteen has become an absolute personal and musical joke: his albums flop faster than Paris Hilton's panties; his political aspirations make all liberals look bad; and his efforts to exploit social causes have become pathetically repetitive. His relevancy hasn’t faded overnight though. Lets take a look at all the events that have made Bruce the musical equivalent of Michael Jackson these days:

1992: The Release of the Albums Human Touch and Lucky Town

These albums arrived simultaneously on March 31, 1992. Despite the obligatory “good reviews” from liberal music critics, the albums barely had an impact on the charts. They debuted at number 2 and 3 respectively, but dropped instantly off the charts. These two poorly-produced albums were definitely the end of an era.

1994: “Streets of Philadelphia”

“Streets of Philadelphia” was one of the best records of 1994, but that’s not saying much since 1994 was the year of "Boyz II Men.” But what really stands out about this record is Bruce’s sudden interest in AIDS, as well as the gay community, one he didn’t have the guts to stand up for in the '80s when they most needed it. Where was Mr. Springsteen, the self-appointed God of the downtrodden, when gays were demonized to the point where it was considered funny for Eddie Murphy to make several gay and AIDS jokes with roaring approval? Megastars such as Elton John, Madonna, Liz Taylor, and very few others risked their entire careers speaking out about the incredible injustice on AIDS and the gay community that decade. Bruce kept his mouth shut until it was “politically” okay to do so. Given that he didn’t have much of a career at the time, he certainly didn’t have much to lose either.

1995: The Ghost of Tom Joad

Um, trying to think of something to write about this... okay, still trying... um... okay, I give up. This album is so unmemorable that I don’t think anybody recalls this talentless effort except, perhaps, the instant fall off the music charts and the failure to produce at least one hit single.

2000: The Anti-Police Officer Song, “41 Shots”

This is the point where Bruce Springsteen lost many devoted fans who had supported him since 1973. By June of 2000, Bruce's career had taken severe punches: his albums did marathon tours of record store bargain bins; his singles didn’t chart; and for the first time ever, his concerts with the E-Street Band posted empty seats at some shows. What was a fading star to do? Don’t ask anybody on the NYPD, whom Bruce Springsteen publicly bashed and accused of racial profiling on this poorly written songwriting attempt. On February 4, 1999, four NYPD officers accidentally killed Guinean immigrant Amadou Diallo. The police officers and police department faced a huge backlash and were accused of police brutality, as well as racism. However, they were acquitted by a jury (which included three African-Americans). Were they racially profiling this man? Nobody truly knows. Bruce Springsteen surely had the answer though: yes! Perhaps this was a way for him to score a hit on the R&B charts.

In 2000, the NYPD was the enemy of extremist liberals. This was the perfect opportunity for Springsteen to once again exploit a cause. And of course, liberal extremists everywhere praised Springsteen. However, something really unexpected happened in 2001: The NYPD became American heroes after their 9/11 efforts. Springsteen, still losing fans over his attempt at career relevance, backtracked and started releasing statements on how “this song isn’t anti-police.” To this day, fans (probably hired by Springsteen himself) run from blog to blog telling people that they need to “listen to the lyrics” and that the song is actually very supportive of the NYPD. That is about as ignorant as saying that Mel Gibson is really pro-Jewish! What’s next Bruce, exploit 9/11?

2002: 9/11: The Album!

In the Summer of 2002, liberal extremists gathered, hugged, cried tears of enjoyment, and became almost sexually aroused as they watched Bruce Springsteen give interview after interview after interview after interview after interview about how he was the “chosen son of 9/11.” He claimed that several “9/11 families” told him to write songs about the events of September 11, 2001. Perhaps not a bad idea, but why the need to commercialize this tragedy like a prostitute commercializes sex? The biggest fallout from this was the actual quality of Springsteen’s 9/11: The Album! (known as The Rising among some people) which is his worst to date. Songs such as “The Rising,” “Mary’s Place,” and “Into the Fire,” completely lacked imagination, rhythm, and vocal talent. But music critics, who would be fired if they said anything negative about Springsteen, raved. Perhaps they were also afraid of being considered unpatriotic. Had any other artist made this album, it would have been demonized.

2004: What Was John Kerry Thinking?

Given George W. Bush’s attempt to draw up his ratings by murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq during a war as unethical as Vietnam, it’s quite unimaginable that any Democratic presidential candidate would lose, except if your name was John Kerry. So what did John Kerry do to draw voters in? He hired Bruce Springsteen as his celebrity spokesperson. You would think somebody would have let Kerry know that most Americans (you know, the ones who don’t work for the media) don’t have a high opinion of Bruce Springsteen. One would also think that Bruce Springsteen would have realized that his socialistic politics had alienated fans. Then again, given the direction that Bruce Springsteen’s career had taken, I suppose he needed some type of attention.

2006: We Shall Vomit: The Seeger Sessions

Why would Bruce attempt to sing songs by someone far more talented than he is? Perhaps the lack of answer to this is because people just didn’t care to think about it: the album didn't last long on the music charts. Springsteen’s fans will argue that charts have nothing to do with quality. True enough, but Bruce Springsteen and his new “Seeger” band sounded remotely similar to an elementary school band. Apparently, concert attendees agreed since they, well, didn’t quite attend Springsteen’s tour in support of this album: there were empty seats almost everywhere this show played to. Springsteen’s attempts to channel the talents of Peter Seeger were empty and depressing. It’s a good thing that most people ignored this album because it really is an insult to a true musical genius, Pete Seeger.

As I mentioned in another article, criticizing Bruce Springsteen (or U2) in an article like this will usually results in the author being censored, fired, or blacklisted among other music critics. Instead of dealing with the truth, music critics and fans look at the author's other works and say, "Well, who care's what he thinks...after all, he gave Bon Jovi's album a good review." Given that Bruce Springsteen supposedly supports liberal causes (such as freedom of speech), something just doesn't seem right. Springsteen, like U2 and many others, are force-fed to us by the music industry. We're not supposed to question their music or motives; if we do, then we aren't true music lovers. Until this changes, the music industry will continue it's steep downfall.

The 5 Worst Records of 2006

2007-02-24T23:18:00.000-08:00

Article Originally Published February 13, 2007 on Blogcritics.org
Since I've written this article, I've actually come to enjoy Justin Timberlakes "Sexy Back." As a mater of fact, I'm starting to enjoy his whole album. I never thought that would happen!

On Sunday evening, the Grammys celebrated what was supposedly the best in music over the past five years. Now, it is time to celebrate the worst. Here are the five worst records of 2006:

5. Beyonce (ft. Jay Z) - "Déjà Vu"What the hell was Daddy Knowles thinking by letting this become the first single from Beyonce’s other decent collection of songs on the B’day album. Everything from Jay Z’s rap to Beyonce’s screeching vocal performance make this song sound like a b-side to a Britney Spears single. You have to give Beyonce credit though: this song would have killed any other artist’s career. For Beyonce, who has spent the last ten weeks at number 1 with “Irreplaceable,” it was barely a blip on the meter.

4. Justin Timberlake – "Sexy Back"The mega success of this single has shown just how low the music world has gone. Everybody’s fake ghetto Michael Jackson pre-molestation wannabe tells us how he wants to bring “sexy” back. But the song is just about as sexy as the thought of Laura Bush in a bikini. Justin Timberlake has apparently found a huge audience by appealing to the lowest denominator of music listeners.

3. Shakira Featuring Wyclef Jean - "Hips Don't Lie"If you want to hear a goat cry, you can easily go to the zoo. But it became easier in 2006 because all you had to do was turn on the radio. Even Wyclef Jean, who was obviously paraded by music moguls, sounds like he doesn’t want to be on this record. Shakira has had other great singles. After many flops, however, Shakira and her record company apparently decided that she had to lower and degrade herself into singing this mess in order to score a hit single.

2. Janet Jackson - "Call on Me"
Apparently, nobody decided to call on Ms. Jackson, who made a desperate comeback attempt with this lame and ultra pathetic single. While the uproar over her "wardrobe malfunction" might have been hypocritical, she did herself no favors by singing this typical R & B fluff produced by her no-talent boy toy, Jermaine Dupri. Nelly does the song no favors with his robotic vocal performance either.

1. Mariah Carey - "Fly Like a Bird"
2006 certainly wasn’t a good year for everybody's favorite overweight human dog whistle: she was a sore loser at the Grammy awards; several of her concerts were cancelled due to poor ticket sales, and she released two singles that completely bombed: “Say Something,” and this absolute mess, where Mariah sounds like an alley cat being beheaded. The chorus at the end sounds produced by a choir from the gates of Hell. Mariah further punishes the listeners with her high pitched signature pig squeal at the end of the song. It used to be that Mariah could disguise her flops as “hits” by severely deep discounting them to 49 cents. Unfortunately, singles don’t sell like they used to and Mariah has to face a fact: a flop is a flop! Now, Mariah, either go to the gym or stop wearing those tight sleazebag outfits that you barely fit into!

Beyonce and Daddy Knowles Get The Last Laugh

2007-02-24T23:14:00.000-08:00

The Beyonce backlash manifested itself last August when Matthew Knowles’ daughter released "Déjà vu," the first single from her upcoming album, B’day. The song zoomed to number 4 on the Billboard Hot 100, but soon flopped faster than a pancake.

Message boards all over the Internet filled up with hate messages about Beyonce’s lack of musical talent, lack of clothing, lack of brain cells, and just about everything else. The buzz that surrounded her album was, indeed, pretty awful. Matthew Knowles was so disturbed that he ended up releasing what was considered a poor and laughable press release. Then came the roaring single “Ring the Alarm,” which failed to cause any excitement on the charts. The album B’day, which ended up getting mixed reviews, debuted at number one, but started to drop fast. Indeed, it looked like Beyonce’s career was in a freefall. Beyonce’s die-hard fans were trying to defend her while her die-hard critics were dancing with celebration. Beyonce can thank her lucky stars for the movie Dreamgirls and B’day’s third single, “Irreplaceable,” which saved her career. Dreamgirls was hyped up to be the greatest musical movie event ever. Even though Jennifer Hudson’s performance in the film as Effie White overshadowed Beyonce’s performance as Deena Jones, many critics gave Beyonce rave reviews.

Others, such as myself, were not so impressed, but Beyonce and Daddy Knowles didn't let a little negativity rain on their parade. After all, Beyonce did receive a Golden Globe nomination for best actress, though Daddy Knowles allegedly accused the voters of racism when his moneymaking machine daughter didn’t win. Allegedly, Daddy Knowles was in tears when the Academy Award nominations were announced and his daughter failed to make the list. Even if Beyonce didn’t receive any acting awards, she’s bound to be a Grammy winner next year for her incredible song “Irreplaceable,” one of the best-written and performed songs this decade. Just as the song “Beautiful” saved Christina Aguilera’s musical career, “Irreplaceable” did a complete 360 degree turn for Beyonce: “Irreplaceable” has been the number 1 single on the Billboard Hot 100 for the past ten weeks!

One could easily compare this to past number-one songs and say it is a cheap sellout, but they would be ignorant to do so. The guitar, Beyonce’s vocal performance, and strong statements such as “I could have another you in a minute!” blend together beautifully in one of the most untypical, but compelling pop songs in years. Like Beyonce’s other music, you can bet that far less talented stars, such as Mariah Carey, will do everything possible to emulate this song. Even though Beyonce is on top again, she may want to watch out. There are still many people waiting to bring her down. In the past couple of weeks, angry bloggers and critics have written about her refusal to pay for her backing dancers’ flight to attend rehearsals. Even worse, she is allegedly only paying them $400 per video. Beyonce is definitely a diva. Then again, she has earned the right to be one.

Prince's Alleged Mimed Masturvation Vs. Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction

2007-02-19T15:25:00.000-08:00

On February 4, 2007, Prince gave one of the greatest live performances ever seen on television. He performed a medley of hits: “Let’s Go Crazy,” “Baby I’m a Star,” “Proud Mary,” “All Along The Watchtower,” “The Best of You,” and a finale of “Purple Rain” during the Superbowl Halftime Show. Oh, and how funny! Prince mimed masturbation with his guitar. No big deal. Many people I talked to pretty much agreed on the same thing: The Halftime Show finally gave viewers a family viewing entertainment extravaganza.

Are people on crack? Do you consider miming masturbation with a guitar behind a curtain “family entertainment?” I sure don’t. But I was glad to see Prince still hasn’t lost his sexy edge. However, I was also extremely angry about the hypocrisy and sexism shown by the American public.

Lets flashback to 2004: The Year of the “Wardrobe Malfunction.” Janet Jackson, like Prince, played a very entertaining set during the Halftime Show. In the final moments, Justin Timberlake came on stage and ripped off a garment that revealed her right breast. This caused one of the biggest uproars in the history of the United States. Some people claimed Janet was preaching violence to women; some claimed she was desperately trying to revive her career (even though her most recent album had sold 3 million copies in the United States alone); some claimed she should be arrested; and many claimed that their kids were forever corrupted by the site of Janet’s right breast.

The result of all this has been a new era of sexual McCarthyism. Bill O’Reilly, the Jesus Christ figure among the moral majority, suggested that Janet go to prison (isn’t this the same O’Reilly who liked to use sexual instruments on himself while harassing coworkers on the phone?). Some people thought the “wardrobe malfunction” helped Bush become reelected. Howard Stern fans who refuse to pay for radio can no longer hear him. The FCC has turned the clock back to the 1950s. All this occurred over a flash of a breast that could have been a mistake.

Many would argue that Prince’s masturbation scene is just as, if not more, explicit as Janet’s “wardrobe malfunction.” But why is there no uproar over this? Where are arguments that Prince is destroying family values? Where are the hundreds of thousands of complaints to CBS? Why aren’t the same people who wanted Janet arrested requesting the same of Prince? The answer is simple: because he’s a man!

The double standard of sexually aggressive men being considered studs while sexually aggressive women are degraded to “sluts” and “whores” has been greatly challenged over the past twenty years: In the 1980s and 1990s, Madonna exploited this double standard with some degree of success. In the late '90s and early part of this decade, the HBO show Sex In The City took the exploitation even further with great success; and over the past twelve years, female performers with sexually explicit performances and/or lyrics (Alanis Morisette; Courtney Love; and Liz Phair) hit high levels of commercial and critical success.

Perhaps it was the events of September 11, 2001, that took this country back into the prehistoric ages. It was a perfect time to brainwash a confused nation. The gay rights movement, which gained steam during the '90s, reversed as Christians told people gays getting married was a much bigger threat to world peace than going to Iraq and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The music industry no longer considered female sexuality powerful; it returned to being thought of as sinful and cheap.

The continued hypocritical reaction to Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” has become the symbol of our nation turning the clock way back. Just ask Justin Timberlake, who was just as involved in the “wardrobe malfunction” as Janet was. Despite cheesy, cookie-cutter music that sounds like it has been produced in minutes, Justin has become the biggest musical superstar in the planet. Janet’s current music has also become low grade. But it’s no worse than Justin Timberlake’s current output. In contrast, her career has taken a major tumble since the “wardrobe malfunction.”

The almost non-reaction or humorous feedback to Prince’s simulated masturbation with his guitar is more proof of our nation moving backwards in time. Once again, I’m not saying that there was any harm done in Prince’s performance; my point is that the way people view his performance, compared to Janet’s, is amazingly sexist. The worldwide promotion of Justin Timberlake to icon status while Janet has been demoted to “former superstar” status is amazingly hypocritical and sexist.

Don’t get me wrong; Janet Jackson is partially responsible for her fallen star. Her attempt to regain her stardom by gaining weight, losing it, and then appearing on magazine covers as the new weight loss queen has not helped her one bit. But it’s her reaction to the “wardrobe malfunction” that has cost her the most. Instead of issuing pathetic, meaningless “apologies” after the 2004 incident, she should have simply said,” So what!” Many of her former fans would have a lot more respect for her.

Perhaps Prince’s performance this year will erase some of the so-called “horror” of Janet’s (and Justin was there too as people conveniently forget) “wardrobe malfunction.” Prince’s stage presence was unmatched, his guitar playing was compelling and he looked like he hasn’t aged for the past twenty years. But people need to realize their hypocrisy when choosing to overlook Prince’s simulated masturbation while continuing to condemn Janet Jackson for a brief flash of a breast.

U2, Music Critics and The Music Industry: As Pathetic as You Can Get

2007-02-19T15:16:00.000-08:00

Flashback to 1987: U2 released The Joshua Tree, the album that solidified their position as the greatest band on earth. The first two singles, “With or Without You” and “Where The Streets Have No Name” zoomed to number one on the Billboard Hot 100. The Joshua Tree Tour was an electrifying concert event that defined the stadium concert era. Back then, it seemed like U2 could do no wrong.

Zoom forward to 2007: After only ten weeks, U2’s U218: Singles album, featuring the new song, “Windows In The Sky,” has plummeted to number 53 on the the Billboard 200 album chart. The new single is a certified bomb. Indeed, the public has finally realized that U2 has jumped the shark. It’s amazing that it has taken the public so long to realize this, given that U2 had actually jumped the shark six years ago with their album All That You Can’t Leave Behind, which was basically a rewrite of U2’s other successful albums.

U2 were unfairly criticized for 1997’s Pop, which wasn’t perfect, but the band definitely deserved respect for their experimentation. So, in 2000, U2 decided to play it safe by releasing the album All That You Can’t Leave Behind. The critics and diehard U2 fans loved the album. “Beautiful Day,” the first single, sounded like a return to form, but the rest of the album was a cliché of U2’s other albums. The album sold well. However, in November of 2002, CBS aired a special about U2’s Elevation Tour which was a complete ratings bomb for U2 and the network.

In 2004, U2 released How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb to record sales of over 850,000 the first week of release. By then, however, the backlash had been firmly in place. Veteran Chicago music critic, Jim DeRogatis, declared the following about Bono: “But the singer's musings never rise above the level of fortune-cookie proverbs, and the most honest line in any of his lyrics comes in "All Because of You," when he confesses, "I like the sound of my own voice.”
U2 ‘s new album was a tie in to a U2 branded iPod. The very scruffy looking band members appeared in several commercials. Once again, U2’s diehard fans ate it up, but the more casual fans were wondering if U2 were going to appear in peanut butter ads soon. Indeed, the band, known for “not selling out,” had sold their souls to the Devil of Commercialism.

U2 followed up the lead single “Vertigo” with one of the worst songs ever created in the rock world, “Sometimes You Can’t Make It On Your Own,” which included the following elementary lyrics: You don't have to put up a fight/You don't have to always be right/Let me take some of the punches/For you tonight.” The music critics, who would most likely get fired if they gave U2 a bad review, claimed the song to be one of U2’s best. To make matters worse, the song won “Song of The Year” at the 48th Annual Grammy Awards, the same organization that gave awards to Milli Vinilli and Jethro Tull. The sad part is that even though the awards achieved by these acts were laughable, their material, at the time, had far more substance than anything U2 has done recently.

The fact is if any other act had dared to put out “music” like U2 has recently, they would be crucified by unforgiving music critics and casual music fans as well. So why does U2 continue to receive constant praise and win awards for releasing material that doesn’t even deserve to be included as an extra “prize” at the bottom of a cereal box? One of my friends, a very popular music critic, told me that if you give U2, Bruce Springsteen, or The Beatles a bad review, you will most likely be fired. If a news organization actually allows a bad review for one of these acts, you have to say how great they are but you just don't prefer their current work. “You would think that we have freedom of speech in the media, but we don’t. It’s quite pathetic. I remember plenty of music writers were angry with Bruce Springsteen’s anti-police song “41 Shots,” back in 2000. They were not allowed to write about their anger because the news organizations that ran the media were against criticizing anybody that agreed with their extremist liberal beliefs.”

More important than political beliefs is the fact that the so-called “professional” music community chooses acts that they consider “good” and if people don’t like these acts, damn them to Hell! A perfect example is the website velvetrope, which contains a forum of so-called music professionals. There have been numerous threads trashing artists (and some deservingly) such as Britney Spears, James Blunt, Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, Christina Aguilera, and others. You would think that, from some of the threads, that one of these artists murdered somebody’s child. However, there are various threads which discuss U2, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Prince, and The Beatles. Even though there are a lot of people who dislike some of these acts (especially Bruce Springsteen and U2), you will probably only see a negative post or two on the topic. However, if you look a couple hours later, not only is the post removed, but the user is banned. That, my friends, is what the politically conspired music industry considers democracy.

Perhaps the greatest music critic in the business today is the previously mentioned Jim DeRogitis, who has the guts to criticize musical acts when they screw up, whether they are “Jesus Christ” figures or not. His review of U2’s How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and the Vertigo Tour that followed were some of the most harsh reviews I’ve ever read. However, they were also incredibly accurate. Jim DeRogitis, famous for his venomous reviews, was fired from Rolling Stone magazine in 1996 after he dared to write a negative review of Hootie and the Blowfish’s new album, Fairweather Johnson. Instead, his review was replaced with a more favorable one by current USA Today music critic, Elysa Gardner. After all, their previous album sold over 8.5 million copies at the time and they were the favorite band of frat boys everywhere. They were also the favorite band of politically correct media conglomerates everywhere for obvious reasons, so anything said against the band was considered a sin. Perhaps Jim DeRogitis had the last laugh: Fairweather Johnson not only bombed at the record stores, but pretty much turned the band into a joke.

U2 is scheduled to release an album later this year. You can bet that, no matter how bad the album is, positive reviews will be written far ahead of its actual release. The album will win several Grammy awards. Music critics, who dare to criticize the album, will be fired. Angry music listeners, who dare to post negative comments about U2 on message boards, will have their posts removed. This, my friends, is pathetic. So why do we constantly act surprised that the music industry has taken such a deep dive over the past five years?

DARYL'S POP MUSIC HALL OF FAME: "Foolish Games," by Jewel

2007-02-19T15:08:00.000-08:00

In late Summer 1997, the world was mourning the death of Princess Diana while still laughing over Eddie Murphy’s sexual fling with a transvestite. The Spice Girls were still hot on the music scene and My Best Friend’s Wedding, starring Julia Roberts, was at the top of the box office. Jewel had released “Foolish Games,” her third radio release off her album Pieces of You. This track was actually redone for the soundtrack of the film Batman & Robin to make it sound more commercial, but most radio stations stuck to playing the original recording. “Foolish Games” was actually never released as a commercial single: record companies started doing this in order to promote album sales. It did appear as a B-side to “You Were Meant for Me,” which climbed to number two on the Billboard Hot 100. Had “Foolish Games” been released as an actual single, it surely would have hit number one since the song was the most played song in the country for several weeks during September and October of 1997.

“Foolish Games,” a mournful ballad about a relationship going sour, includes some of the following lyrics: Well in case you failed to notice, in case you failed to see/This is my heart bleeding before you, this is me down on my knees /These foolish games are tearing me apart Your thoughtless words are breaking my heart

Many listeners were intrigued that a “breakup” song could actually be somewhat intelligent. Others thought Jewel’s lyrics were nothing but “psycho-babble.” The “Foolish Games” video itself did nothing to clarify the lyrics, and instead resembled a cliché of Madonna’s more innocent videos from the '80s. There was also a little bit of Whitney Houston’s “How Will I Know” in there too. Jewel never needed to resemble any act - she’s an amazing talent all by herself: her songwriting is meaningful (even if a little bit overdone); her voice is angelic; and unlike most other pop stars, she actually knows how to play an instrument. It’s a shame her recent efforts have failed, both artistically and commercially, to rival her '90s output. Still, songs like “Foolish Games” are rare and timeless.

JACKASS NUMBER TWO: Most Offensive Guilty Pleasure Film Ever Made

2007-01-29T07:43:00.000-08:00

Because I’m not a big fan of “stunt comedy” films, I stayed away from Jackass Number Two when it hit theaters last year. I’m the type of person who thought that Borat was one of the most pathetic, stupid films ever made. I was forced into seeing the first Jackass film four years ago and walked out of the theater wondering why I wasted my precious Friday evening.

Needless to say, I was in a very depressed mood last evening and immediately needed something to escape my misery, even if it was a different misery. Johnny Knoxville, Bam Margera, Steve-O, Chris Pontius, Wee Man and company might not be everybody’s idea of an anti-depressant, but their pathetic antics certainly worked on me.

Anybody who was thrilled with the first Jackass will most likely indulge in more electrocutions, drinking horse semen, a penis nipping snake, motor bike accidents, butt burnings, bull attacks, unsavory bungee jumps, transgender jokes, swarming bee attacks, more “bathroom” accidents, butt chugging, etc. But nothing will disgust and prepare you for one of the film's final stunts, where Danger Aaron thinks dressing up like a terrorist (with the pubic hairs of the other cast members he is unaware of) will scare the taxi cab driver. Little does Danger Aaron know that the taxi cab driver, Jay Chandresekhar, is aware of the stunt and turns it into another stunt. It isn’t as graphically disturbing as some of the other Jackass stunts, but the very idea of this segment and the way they execute it is just about the most offensive thing I’ve ever seen on film. It’s also one of the most hilarious!

The film flows from one scene to another with ease and even when the rare boring scenes appear (butt electrocution, doorbell punching bag, human fishhook) you know something more “exciting” awaits your eyes. All the scenes are filmed in such a way that the viewer feels (and at times, regrets) that he/she is part of the action.

Part of me hopes there will be a Jackass Number Three. However, another part of me feels that if they extend the boundaries of danger and poor taste even more than this sequel, many of the cast members will be dead. Judging from the Jackass series so far, perhaps the cast members won’t mind. They’ll be laughing themselves all the way to Heaven (or Hell).

ANGELINA JOLIE'S FALL FROM SAINTHOOD

2007-01-23T20:19:00.000-08:00

I can just see it now: As Angelina Jolie prepares for her next visit to a 3rd World Orphanage, she receives a call from her philanthropy Publicist. who says that her digital photographer has just quit. “But I need someone to take pictures of me caring for the kids!” Jolie screams.

“Angelina, we can hire a new one. Better yet, I have a 6 megapixel digital camera. I can take pictures of you holding one of them. You should hold one of the Black ones since it will make you look more caring!”

“Well, we need to make sure that the kids look sick. If they aren’t sick, please poison their food!” Jolie goes on. Then, she calls in Brad to make sure that her other two adopted kids, Maddox and Zahara, are dressed for their photo ops. She dresses Maddox in Ninja type clothes, but chooses African safari clothes for Zahara. She then decides that Brad needs a moment of pleasure before they begin their journey. “I bet Jennifer could never do that!” she says in a whispery voice. Brad nods his head in agreement.

Does this sound like the “Saint Angelina” the world has come to embrace over the past few years? Perhaps not. But you know something is wrong in the “Saint Angelina” PR department when even the ultra-liberal New York Times disses you. In an article titled “After All That Goodness, a Sudden Fall From Grace,” the New York Times discusses her snobby interview with Ryan Seacrest at the Golden Globes, where Angelina pretty much let Ryan know that she was too good for him. The article goes on to quote other news sources that are currently blasting the self appointed Mother of Legal Adoption. But did Angelina really ever deserve that title?

Apparently, St. Angelina’s adoption of Maddox from Cambodia was anything but legal: government officials were bribed; Maddox’s mother was paid a substantial amount of cash; and the American businesswoman who handled the adoption is now in prison. Worst of all, many parents hopeful of adopting a child from Cambodia had their hearts broken when the government banned all adoptions because of Angelina Jolie’s illegal activities. So why did the media look beyond these facts when turning Angelina into a saint?

The answer is simple: the media doesn’t care about facts; they are only interested in building up celebrities just so they can tear them down. Saint Angelina, the Mother of Adoption, was an image that would sell. Jolie’s hookup with Brad Pitt made Saint Angelina even more marketable, even if some accused her of stealing him away from Jennifer Anniston. But the image of St. Angelina isn’t selling as well, so it’s time for the media to tear her down. Of course, Angelina’s calling her newborn child Shiloh a “blob,” blabbing to the press about how she wants to adopt legally (when she’s actually an adoption criminal) doesn’t help. The media looks for reasons to tear down a celebrity and Angelina has given them plenty of reasons to choose from.

There’s hope for Angelina Jolie. Once a celebrity gets torn down, the media likes to build them up again: it’s called “the comeback.” But the celebrity has to give a good reason for the media to do this. Going to 3rd world orphanages and cuddling with kids in front of cameras isn’t going to help. Angelina’s other fake philanthropy efforts, such as being a U.N. Ambassador, are going to make people hate her even worse. It’s time to bring back Slut Angelina from the early part of the decade. At least that image was fun and convincing.

DARYL'S POP MUSIC HALL OF FAME: "Don't Stop Believing," by Journey

2007-01-22T18:49:00.000-08:00

In the early fall of 1981, MTV was just getting off the ground and Sandra Day O'Connor was about to take her seat as the first female justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Atari 2600 was the hottest video game system in the planet.

1981 was also the year that Journey released their album, Escape, which included three top ten singles. “Don’t Stop Believing,” the second single, might have only reached number 9 on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, but this single has far outlasted almost any other song released during this time.

“Don’t Stop Believing,” which is about different people escaping in order to pursue their dreams, has recently been brought back to prominence as the unofficial theme song of the 2005 World Champion Chicago White Sox. Some of the lyrics include:

Working hard to get my fill, everybody wants a thrill

Payin' anything to roll the dice, just one more time

Some will win, some will lose, Some were born to sing the blues

Oh, the movie never ends, It goes on and on and on and on…

“Don’t Stop Believing,” which includes the best keyboard intro ever to a pop song, also contains one of the best pop vocal performances of our time. Steve Perry may not have an incredible voice technically, but his singing is enhanced by the emotion he puts into his efforts. When other singers try to redo Journey’s songs, the results are usually disastrous since hardly any singer has Perry’s vocal personality.

Journey followed “Don’t Stop Believing” with other hits that charted even higher. After the mid eighties, their relevance seemed to have faded in the fast changing pop music world. Still, whenever anybody mentions the early eighties, Journey’s name comes up with a vengeance.

DARYL'S POP MUSIC HALL OF FAME: "Waterfalls" by TLC

2007-01-17T20:05:00.000-08:00

In July of 1995, an incredible heat wave had hit the Midwestern United States, causing many deaths. Croatian forces launched Operation Storm against Serbian forces in Krajina, with the cooperation of the ARBiH, and forced them to withdraw to central Bosnia.

TLC (T-Boz, Left Eye and Chilli) had scored the second number one hit from their hit album CrazySexyCool, "Waterfalls." It was produced by the Organized Noize team and written by Marqueze Etheridge, TLC member Lisa "Left Eye" Lopes, and Organized Noize. It would stay at the top of Billboard Hot 100 for seven weeks.

"Waterfalls" is the best, if not one of the best, R&B tracks ever released. The funky instruments, addicting melody, stylish vocals, and incredible message brought TLC to the height of their fame. The song asks the listener not to overstep what they are capable of or he/she might be in for a disaster: Don't go chasing waterfalls, please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to / I know that you're gonna have it your way or nothing at all, but I think you're moving too fast....

The video for "Waterfalls" is just as impressive as the song. We see the TLC threesome dancing in a magical ocean while the camera rapidly shifts between two different scenerios: A mother who tries to stop the fate of her son, who dies in a drug deal, and a man whose obsession with sex leads him to death. The scene where the man brings out a condom that his female partner throws away is extremely powerful. The cinematography in this video is beautiful and it definitely deserved the several MTV Video Music Awards it won late in the Summer of 1995.

TLC would release another successful album, FanMail (1999) that spawned two more number
one singles ("No Scrubs" and "Unpretty"). After member Left Eye died in a 2002 car crash while on holiday in La Ceiba, Honduras, the magic was gone. TLC released their 3D album in 2002 without much interest. Their greatest hits package in 2005 was a huge flop, selling only 500,000 copies worldwide. No matter what happens to TLC in the future, they will always have the brilliance of "Waterfalls" on their resume.

DARYL'S POP MUSIC HALL OF FAME: "Love Is a Battlefield" by Pat Benatar (1983)

2007-01-17T10:52:00.000-08:00

"Love is a Battlefield,” produced with husband Neil Giraldo and written by Mike Chapman & Holly Knight, was released from Pat Benatar’s album Live From Earth, which was a chart topper in the Fall of 1983. The single has been certified gold and is her best selling single in America. “Love Is A Battlefield” topped Billboard’s Mainstream Rock Chart and made the top five of the Billboard Hot 100.

While Michael Jackson remained the biggest superstar on the planet and America was still talking about the possibility of nuclear war, Pat Benatar released this moving, beautifully crafted song. She sings:

You're beggin me to go, you're makin me stay/Why do you hurt me so bad?

It would help me to know/Do I stand in your way, or am I the best thing you've had?

Believe me, believe me, I can’t tell you why/But I'm trapped by your love, and Im chained

to your side...

The song shows an independent woman, but one who also feels like a victim. She demands respect and sympathy from her lover. As a metaphor, she compares love to a war, one which neither side wins.

The video for “Love Is a Battlefield” certainly helped the single’s chart status. In this classic video, often considered one of the early pioneers of this recently faded art form, the battle is between a teenage girl and her parents. Pat Benatar’s character runs away from home. She joins a group of female friends who look like prostitutes, but end up standing up for themselves when men try to go past their boundaries. Pat’s dancing is pretty flimsy in this video, but that doesn’t take away from the video’s general excellence.

The image of women who look like prostitutes but think like pimps is very standard now. In 1983, however, this was controversial, postmodern, and most importantly, brave. We were only used to seeing women “prostituted” in music videos just for men’s pleasure and nothing else. Soon after this video was released, we saw a wild looking Cyndi Lauper declaring “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun,” despite her parent’s disapproval. Then came videos from Madonna, Janet Jackson, and others which followed this theme. Perhaps Pat Benatar should be credited more for creating the “postmodern” woman in music video.

Pat Benatar had a couple more hits after “Love Is A Battlefield,” but has not had the lasting affect she and her talents deserve to have. She has acknowledged that the music industry often looks down at ageing female stars. Recent concert performances have shown, however, that Pat can still bring down the house and won’t need to record an album featuring Jermaine Dupri and Timbaland anytime soon just to fit in with the current music scene.

DREAMGIRLS Is a Real Sleeper!

2007-01-13T20:35:00.000-08:00

I originally had not planned to see Bill Condon’s Dreamgirls. However, after reading glowing reviews, hearing constant Oscar talk and positive word of mouth from most people I know, I walked into the theater expecting the musical equivalent of Titanic. Perhaps my expectations were too high because by the end of the film, I was nearly asleep.

Don’t get me wrong: this isn’t an awful film. However, it appears to be overhyped, possibly for political reasons. Until recently, Hollywood has downplayed African American actors. Films that deal with African American culture have not always fared well at the box office despite their excellent quality. So, is Hollywood, as well as movie critics, trying to “make up” for this poor judgment by taking your regular average film and turning it into an “Oscar” worthy film?

Some of the performances are definitely Oscar worthy. Eddie Murphy gives the greatest performance of his career as James “Thunder” Early, the R&B singer whom the girls get their big break with. Jamie Fox gives a moving performance as Curtis Taylor Jr., a booking agent who ends up not being the angel he appears to be in the beginning of the film. Jennifer Hudson is the real star of this film. Not only is she convincing as Effie White, the girl who causes trouble with the Dreamgirls and eventually gets kicked out, but her singing brings the audience to its feet. Her performance of “And I’m Telling You I’m Not Going” actually had people give her a standing ovation and this is something I’ve never seen in a movie theater before. These excellent performances, unfortunately, don't necessarily make an excellent film.

There is one major leach to this film and that is Beyonce Knowles, who plays Dreamgirls lead singer Deena Jones. The producers of this film should have realized that a cookie cutter R&B artist who is remotely controlled by her father does not necessarily make a good actress. Throughout the film, Beyonce seems, well, remotely controlled. She was supposed to be the big star of this film but ends up being a flat raspberry. She is particularly flat when oversinging “Listen”. This comes as bad news for Beyonce’s overbearing father, Matthew.

The film often abruptly goes from spoken dialogue to singing, which might have worked on Broadway, but doesn’t always feel right in this film. The music itself makes the viewer wish that they had abandoned some of the original Broadway music and replaced it with more of a “Motown” sound.

The worst part of the film is the way it drags on and on and on and on. Cutting this film by at least a quarter would have made the final scene in the movie, where the Dreamgirls reunite, more effective. But the reaction to this scene becomes more like “Finally!” than “Wow!” After this final scene, the audience did clap. Were they clapping because the film was finally over?

DARYL'S POP MUSIC HALL OF FAME: "True Colors" by Cyndi Lauper (1986)

2007-01-10T18:15:00.000-08:00

In the Fall of 1986, Ronald Reagan had just signed the Goldwater-Nichols Act into law, making official the largest reorganization of the United States Department of Defense since the Air Force was made a separate branch of service in 1947. The music scene was dominated by Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson, and Madonna. But the hottest female singer of 1984, Cyndi Lauper, was about to maker her return.

“True Colors” was released to radio stations in late summer of 1986 and it took some time for the song to take off. By the end of October of that year, Cyndi Lauper would score yet another number one single on Billboard’s Top 100. This would be Cyndi’s last number one single, but definitely not her last great recording. The song has gone on to be remade several times and has been featured in different commercials.

“True Colors” was written by the songwriting team of Billy Steinberg and Tom Kelly, who also wrote Madonna's "Like A Virgin," Heart's "Alone," and Lauper's "I Drive All Night." The song is about looking below the surface to see what a person is really like. The song has a slow, magical beat with incredible vocals. Cyndi sings, “But I see your true colors shining through….I see your true colors and that’s why I love you…So don’t be afraid to let them show….” This single reminded the public why they fell in love with Cyndi in the first place: her girlish (but beautiful) voice.

The “True Colors” video, unfortunately, features the same clichés as Cyndi’s other videos: elementary special effects (then again, this is the 80s); outrageous hair; her mom; her boyfriend (now husband), etc. But don’t let that take away from the brilliance of this song. Download (but by all means, please pay!) the song, turn the lights off, close your eyes, and let this magical number take you to Dreamland.

2006: THE BEST AND WORST IN FILM

2006-12-27T18:53:00.000-08:00

CINEMATIC MASTERPIECE

I can’t believe I was, at first, suckered into not seeing United 93, Paul Greengrass’s cinematic masterpiece. People told me “It was too depressing,” or “It is not the right time to make this film!” Having seen a recent documentary on Flight 93, I decided I would sit out for this film because I did not want to experience the same heartache I did when watching the documentary.

When renting it a couple months ago, I realized what my eyes had missed from the movie screen: a touching - often heartbreaking - and well documented film that chronicles the events of September 11, 2001, but concentrates on the heroes of Flight 93, which crashed down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania at approximately 10:06 A.M.

While nobody really knows what exactly happened on Flight 93, there were several cell phone calls, radio traffic reports, and a cockpit recording as well. There definitely was enough material to make a film about this, and it was done in a very tasteful way. Paul Greengrass also documented interviews from family members, United employees, and government officials to make this story as real as possible.

Greengrass doesn’t make us just “watch” the film, he puts us into the film. We are all observers at the beginning, recalling the terrible memories that fateful morning of September 11, 2001. When Flight 93 takes off in the film, we actually feel like we are there. The shaky camera shots, the realistic dialogue, and the inconsistent camera angles all add to this realistic simulation. What horrifies the viewer is the fact that even though he or she is there, there is nothing that can be done to stop the fate. Even though Greengrass spares us mostly of the “blood and guts” part, sitting through and experiencing the probable events of Flight 93 is still an incredibly scary experience, but one we realize is definitely worth it in the end.

When the passengers gather to discuss how to take over the plane, we ask ourselves if we, in the same situation, would do the same thing. When we see them charge at the terrorists, we wonder exactly what these passengers were feeling at the time. The last few moments of the film, though violent, are extremely touching. By that time, we are no longer wondering what we would do in that situation, but rather celebrating the heroism of the Flight 93 passengers.

United 93 might have not been a blockbuster at the box office, but it one of the few movies of the year that will be remembered in years to come. Anybody who refused to see the film because they feel it is exploiting the heroism of the Flight 93 passengers for profit, or because they don’t want the horrible feelings of September 11 to resurface again should seriously reconsider.

OLIVER STONE’S COMPLETE EXPLOITATION OF 911

Ok, now to go onto the worst film of the year, World Trade Center. Yes, this film did cause some emotions among audience members, but those emotions were produced because of people recalling the actual events of 911, not this cheap film, which reeks of forced sentimentalism, propaganda, and bad acting.

The raspberry award for this film goes to Michael Pena, who plays real World Trade Center hero Will Jimeno. His fake New Jersey accent is so annoying that by the middle of the film, the viewer is desperate for this film to focus, instead, on Nicholas Cage (who plays real life Sgt. John McLaughlin). Even though Cage’s acting isn’t as annoying as Pena’s, it often seems overly animated – something that worked well in his other films.

The most disturbing part of this film, however, is that the once brave Oliver Stone seems brainwashed by the Bush administration. The film comes across as propaganda for the same administration that wants us to believe that there is a connection between the World Trade Center and Iraq. In fact, Stone invents a very nice looking, God-fearing character played by Michael Shannon, an accountant, who declares to his coworkers that “this country is at war.” After going to church and praying, he heads over to the World Trade Center to help with the efforts. It’s surprising that he didn’t declare, “Vote for George W. Bush” at the end of the film.

World Trade Center might have earned praise from the closeted homosexual, right wing cheerleaders. It did win a lot of praise from many movie critics as well, probably because they were afraid to pan the film and look “Anti-American.” However, the audience has spoken: World Trade Center is a flop!

I ADMIT IT: I'M A MINORTY!

2006-12-23T03:39:00.000-08:00

Ok, so I don’t have a big nose, I don’t save a lot of money, and I’m not conspiring with the media to take over the country. But, I am Jewish. I’ve never really practiced it, but Judaism is just as much of a culture as it is a religion. I’ll even prove my Judaism more by admitting that I grew up in Skokie, Illinois and ate bagels all the time. Isn’t that enough proof?

It wasn’t until I moved beyond Skokie that I realized the full extent of anti Semitism. When attending Northern Illinois University, there were people who had swastikas in their dorm rooms. When I mentioned I was Jewish, the response was anything but favorable. Our school even gave Louis Farrakhan, biggest Jew hater of them all, the invitation to speak and wanted to use our money for his appearance.

I moved into the city of Chicago soon after I graduated and in big cities, there is more acceptance. But that didn’t stop my eyes from seeing signs warning “Stop The Jewish Media.” It didn’t stop me from hearing someone say, “He Jewed Me” on the train. It also didn’t stop a good friend I had recently made assuming that I didn’t eat pork. I survived.

As the years went by, I not only learned to accept my Judaism, but became increasingly angry that despite the fact that I had grown up to be a minority that is incredibly hated, I never received the “special status” that other minorities have, particularly African Americans and Latinos. When I say special status, I refer to situations in which minorities have been accepted to major universities or job positions in which they don’t necessarily have the same skills as other applicants. Unfortunately, many of the very people hurt by affirmative action policies are minorities too, including Jews such as myself or Asians.

I support the underlying philosophy of Affirmative Action: Because racism has played such a huge part of our national history, people discriminated against need an extra push to make the playing field level. But how do we define “minority?” Why am I overlooked when it comes to “minority” status? Like African Americans, Jews surely have a history of discrimination, even in the United States. When I applied for a minority scholarship while working on my Master’s degree, why was I turned down? When I protested and wrote a letter to the president of the university, why did I receive a nasty letter telling me that I have privileges that I don’t realize and that I am racist? Yup, I’m sure some of my ancestors felt their privilege as they were being tossed into ovens! When my dad and mom separated, I surely didn’t feel privileged when I had to eat potato chips for lunch and some not so flattering dinners. How cruel is it to judge me just by my skin color without knowing the full picture? Isn’t that what we’re all trying to work against?

Affirmative Action programs, which had a very promising start in the 1960s, have become a nuisance to our society by indirectly telling some minority groups that they can’t make it on their own merits while telling other minority groups “So what if you were discriminated against?” These programs have indirectly told people that we should not judge someone by their character, but instead, by the color of their skin. That, my politically correct friends, is racist.

BORAT AND THE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA

2006-12-23T02:00:00.000-08:00

Originally Posted on Nov. 24, 2006

I absolutely hate when everybody loves a movie that I don’t. I never saw the “brilliance” of Forrest Gump. Till this day, I think the first Star Wars movie is entertaining, but doesn’t deserve to be called a “classic.” I rank Shakespeare in Love as one of the worst movies of all time. So, you might not want to take me seriously when I say that Borat should not be considered a movie; it should be considered a symbol of the dumbing down of America.

If you have read my previous blogs, you understand that I am not a flag waiving Christian conservative or a Jesse Jackson loving liberal. There was nothing morally offensive about this film. The most offensive thing, however, is that most of the critics and audience actually believe that there is a lot of substance to the film. Many say that Sacha Baron Cohen, who has about as much comedic talent as Britney Spears has musical talent, should at least get an Oscar nomination for this film. Others say that this film should help curve racism and sexism since the film show how ridiculous both of these “isms” are. Here’s an example of some of the reviews by “respected” film critics:

- The brilliance of Borat is that its comedy is as pitiless as its social satire, and as brainy. (Manohla Dargis, New York Times).

- Cohen's seeming powers of improvisation, ability to stay in character and still come up with funny lines in hostile conditions impresses throughout. (Leslie Felperin, Variety)

- For once it is true: Borat has to be seen to be believed (Kirk Honeycutt, Hollywood Reporter)

I would post other reviews as well, but I don’t want to make you, or myself, sick. For all you who disagree with me, please explain how this film is any different from a collection of clips from Youtube? Please explain how this film is supposed to make me not racist or sexist by reverse psychology. Actually, I’ve become quite racist against Jewish British comedians as of late, but I know there must be some who have at least an ounce of talent.

Perhaps some of the film might have had substance if at least some of the scenes were real. The final scene, where Borat “bags” Pamela Anderson, was very badly acted. Even so, why did Borat consider Pamela Anderson the “American” sex symbol? This is 2006, not 1996! Even worse was Borat’s dinner with the lovely Southern family which seemed very scripted.

The only actor that shows some comedic talent is Ken Davitian, who plays Azamat Bagatov. After his “fight" with Borat, we don’t see him until the very end of that film. At that point, there is a short sigh of relief. However, Azamat’s reappearance comes too late and can’t save this pathetic film from crashing. Then again, judging by both the critical and financial success of Borat, perhaps I am the one who has really crashed.

THE MADOPTION SCANDAL

2006-12-23T01:32:00.000-08:00

Originally Published on November 5, 2006

I have recently watched both Oprah and Nightline featuring Madonna talking about the “Adoption Scandal of the Century.” Both were very depressing and it’s not because Madonna didn’t defend herself well. They were depressing because Madonna actually had to defend herself for saving a child’s life. All these people screaming about her adoption wouldn’t have moved a foot if little David Banda died in an orphanage.

I feel the controversy really has nothing to do with the adoption; it’s because it’s Madonna doing the adoption. Lets face it: she rubs some people the wrong way. Religious groups are still up in arms over her performance of “Live To Tell” (click to see on youtube) which they say was mocking Jesus. However, anybody who has actually seen the performance knows that she was doing anything but mocking Jesus or religion. Her message actually is very pro Christian. Then again, Madonna has pushed our buttons so much that it’s hard to tell if she’s doing something just to shock people or portray a message. In this case, I would say she was trying to do both.

Many people also despise Madonna over her obsession with Kaballah, an offshoot of Judaism that some believe is as whacky as Scientology. In reality, Kaballah is a belief system that’s not much different from common sense. Madonna’s obsession with Kaballah was a good thing for her at first as it inspired her to write and produce the album Ray of Light, which is considered the high point of her career.

Unfortunately, starting with the album American Life, Madonna let Kaballah go to her head a little too much as she started becoming increasingly preachy and in some cases, downright hypocritical. Madonna, babe, I understand that people do change. But please don’t preach to me about how bad materialism is when I see you wear fur coats and charge $350 for concert tickets! Madonna has continued her Kaballah celebration over the years with a set of children’s books and a documentary, I’m Going To Tell You A Secret. The fact that there wasn’t a distributor that would dare pick up this film obviously gave Madonna the message that it was time to have fun and not take herself too seriously.

In November of 2006, she released Confessions on a Dance Floor, a fun return to her dance roots, to both worldwide commercial and critical success. Though radio stations in America (owned by the right wing Clear Channel who is still angry she spoke out against president Bush) didn’t play most of the singles, the album was listed as one of the best selling of 2006 in Billboard magazine. She followed it up with her most successful tour, both commercially and critically, the Confessions Tour. Shortly before the adoption, it was announced that this tour became the highest grossing tour ever by a female artist. Then, it was announced that Madonna has been the highest paid female singer since 2004, even before her most recent album and tour. Her critics, who have been declaring her “irrelevant,” must have been very angry. So whether people want to admit it or not, many of Madonna’s critics are looking for some reason to tear her down from the pedestal that she had been on this past year.

For all these reasons, Madonna’s good deeds have backfired in a way that has never been seen before. Angelina Jolie was praised for her “good deeds,” especially since she loves using her adopted kids as props for photo ops wherever she goes. Meg Ryan never ran into any trouble with her adoption. Regardless, there were interesting circumstances surrounding Madonna’s adoption, such as the fact that little David Banda has an actual living father. However, the controversy that this so-called “scandal” has caused still seems fake and a result of sour grapes.

Still, there are things that Madonna could have done differently. For one thing, it was really strange when her publicist denied the adoption, then confirmed it. In PR terms, that’s not a good thing. I am also curious as to why Guy Richie, her husband and partner in the adoption, didn’t appear with her on any of the interviews in the United States or Britain. Couldn’t Madonna and her legal team have avoided leaving David in Malawi after her visit due to some paperwork errors? Having a social worker “deliver” David Banda to Madonna’s house surely didn’t look right, even if it was the safest thing to do at the time. I don’t think Madonna is the “PR genius" she’s often been portrayed as because even though many were out to “get” her, better PR strategies could have saved Madonna from at least some of the heartache she is feeling.

Perhaps the media circus surrounding this adoption is a blessing in disguise. For one thing, people are now aware of the desperate situation in Malawi. There has also been a huge increase in adoptions over the past month. Because of Madoption 2006, Malawi will hopefully review and change their overly strict adoption laws. So even if little David Banda is nothing but a “fashion accessory” as some describe, he’s sure an important one that will no doubt have a positive and lasting impact.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY: MORE QUEER THAN A $3 BILL

2006-12-22T23:49:00.000-08:00

Originally Posted on October 26, 2006

When I first moved to Southern California in the Summer of 1997, it was difficult to meet new people whom I could trust. People always wanted you for something different than it appeared to be. Such is the case when I strolled into a Starbucks in West Hollywood to kill a couple hours before meeting my friend from college, Angie, whom I hadn't seen in nearly eight years. I noticed a redneck looking man, in his late twenties or early thirties, staring at me like a dog stares at a bone. It was a friendly stare that didn’t really scare me, but made me sort of uncomfortable. The man quietly came up to me and introduced himself as “Matt.” Since I wasn’t into Internet surfing at the time, I had no idea it was Matt Drudge, the man who would soon become the Jesus Christ figure of the right wing religious gossip fanatics. He was very curious about me. He first asked me if I had a girlfriend. When I answered no, he asked me what I was doing in West Hollywood that day. I told him I was visiting a friend, whom he automatically assumed was a guy. When I told him it was a girl, he had a very weird look on his face.

He told me that he has a popular Internet site in which he was looking for people to help him run. I was desperate for money at the time and took immediate interest. He bought me a cup of coffee and invited me back to his apartment. I wasn’t sure of Mr. Drudge’s exact motives, but knew he wasn’t harmful and could easily defend myself. Needless to say, when I got back to his apartment, my suspicions about his motives became true as he started rubbing my shoulder. I immediately ran out his door in disgust as he screamed, “Asshole!”

Six months later, Matt Drudge broke the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal on his Internet site, The Drudge Report. He rapidly became a pioneer in news reporting. No longer did a writer need to get approval from an editor in order to reach millions of people. Matt Drudge proved that you can ruin people’s lives at the click of a mouse. He was a central figure in the new era of McCarthyism that took place when the false war in Iraq started by smearing everybody that was against Bush. However, his biggest pet peeve wasn’t Democrats; it was those awful homosexuals that were sodomizing our nation. How ironic, since Drudge is a queer himself! If you don’t believe my story, ask David Brock, author of Blinded By The Right. Or read this.

There is nothing wrong with being gay, despite what the religious right tries to tell you. But there is something wrong with preaching against homosexuality, then practicing it yourself. This seems to be a continuing factor among the religious right. Besides Matt Drudge, other recent outed Republicans include Bill O’Reilly and Representative Mark Foley.

Ok, I’ll admit that there is no direct proof that Bill O’Reilly is homosexual, but calls made to sexually harass coworker Andrea Makris at least indicate that he is probably bisexual. According to recorded reports, Mr. O’Reilly told Andrea he was using a dildo on himself while they were talking. He told her, among other things, that he has his very own dildo. I don’t know many straight men who willingly use dildos on themselves, do you? Besides, Bill O’Reilly fits the picture perfect description of a closeted homosexual: he speaks out against gay marriage; lashes out at gay culture; and didn’t get “married” until his late forties. Don’t you think he and Sean Hannity would make a great couple?

The scandal revolving around Rep. Mark Foley is a very familiar one. By now, everybody under the sun knows he resigned on September 29, 2006 after it became public that he had allegedly sent sexually explicit and solicitative e-mails and instant messages to former Congressional pages who were both under and over the age of 18. This is the scandal that will not only bring down the Republicans (temporarily), but will no doubt make them examine why they despise the gay community so much. Perhaps it will make true Republicans, who value very little government intrusion into their daily lives, realize that their party has been hijacked by Jesus freak Neocons who preach the bible, but reach for any little boys that will satisfy their desires. Due to this scandal, many other Republicans will be outed. Trust me, there are enough key gay Republicans out there to fill up a whole West Hollywood gay parade.

SOUTH PARK MAKES THE SIMPSONS IRRELEVANT

2006-12-22T16:13:00.000-08:00

Originally Posted on October 14, 2006

When South Park first came on in 1997, I was the least bit thrilled. Vulgar characters that looked made out of construction paper didn’t really thrill me. Back then, I was such a fan of The Simpsons that I considered any other adult cartoon that tried to compete a “knockoff.”

In a way, Trey Parker and Matt Stone simply elaborated on Matt Groening’s use of cartoon characters in order to make fun of present politics and culture. The show also contains a show within a show, Terrance and Phillip, which is vulgar, incredibly stupid, and proves a point: society gets its kicks off of stupid television shows. The South Park kids treat Terrance and Phillip as Christ like figures, just as the Simpson kids do with the incredibly violent cat and mouse, Itchy and Scratchy. Unfortunately, Itchy and Scratchy have become more interesting than The Simpsons show itself, while South Park gets better with every season.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be too hard on The Simpsons, one of the longest running, most successful “sitcoms” ever. Some episodes were absolutely brilliant. Remember the “Duff Gardens” episode in which Aunt Selma tried to be a good babysitter, but Lisa ended up getting drunk.? Remember the absolutely hilarious “Flaming Moe” episode with Aerosmith? Then, there is my all-time favorite Simpsons episode where Marge tries to get Itchy and Scratchy banned from television. For years, the Simpsons dealt with taboo subjects and pushed the limits of network television. However, being that it is “network” television, the limits can only be stretched so far and it’s obvious from some recent lame episodes that the Janet Jackson effect has lamed even this once impeccable series. Now, no matter how funny the show gets, the writers always have to “make up” for it by teaching a lesson to the viewer. The episode which featured the “gay marriage” was incredibly lame and tried too hard to satisfy both sides of the controversy.

Because South Park is on a cable network, Comedy Central, the writers don’t have to worry about satisfying the Christian right, with the exception of not originally airing the “Virgin Mary” episode (it did eventually air). The episode, which angered the Catholic League by having the “Virgin Mary” statue fart blood on people, was pretty offensive. However, it also showed the craziness of organized religion. Catholicism is certainly not the only religion that’s been a target of South Park, which has also made fun of Christianity, Judaism, and Tom Cruise’s favorite religion, Scientology. It was the “In The Closet” episode that made me a South Park fan. Because of all the hype, I just had to watch it. Because of the brilliance of this episode, I was on file sharing sites downloading every episode of South Park that I could. In this episode, Kyle is brainwashed into becoming a scientologist and made to believe he is the reincarnated spirit of Ron L. Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. We learn, from this episode, that Scientology was founded by the belief that evil aliens had been planting irrational thoughts into our heads. The episode also pokes fun of closeted homosexual celebrities, such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta, by having them “hide in a closet.” The episode was not only a commentary on the craziness of religion, but a brilliant commentary on how major stars live a “lie” in order to cover up their sexuality.

Another recently hilarious, and adventurous episode, is the recent “World of Warcraft” episode in which a renegade player threatens the massively multiplayer online game and the fate of this game lies in the hands of the South Park characters. This episode not only shows the brilliance of technology, but it also shows that people really have “no lives.” The renegade player, who obviously has no life and enough time to become an expert that even the experts can’t stop, symbolizes all of the videogame addicts in this world. But it’s the advancement of technology that leads to this irrelevant conquest: Wow! Who would ever think that technology would let us join a virtual world in which pathetic videogame characters kill each other?

The most recent episode, “Mystery of The Urinal Device,” was one of the first episodes in a long time that hasn’t thrilled me. It dealt with Eric Cartman’s revelation of the 911 conspiracy. For the first time – in a long time – the episode just seemed “behind the times.” However, even this episode was more relevant, funny, and thought provoking than any Simpsons episode in the last five years has been.

THE FALL OF JANET JACKSON

2006-12-22T15:39:00.000-08:00

Originally Published on Oct. 4, 2006

THE FALL OF JANET JACKSON

Even though I am embarrassed to admit it, Janet Jackson was one of my teen idols. I’ll never forget seeing the video for “What Have You Done For Me Lately” in March of 1986, when I was an impressionable teenager with raging hormones. I knew she was Michael’s little sister, but she just came across as incredibly unique. Even though Janet was overweight, she was beautiful. She didn’t have to try to be sexy like she does now; she was sexy. My friends, who were into Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel, etc. told me she would be a one hit wonder. Unfortunately, for them, Control became the first album by a female artist to ever launch five top 5 singles on Billboard’s then relevant Hot 100: “What Have You Done For Me Lately;” “Nasty;” “Control;” “When I Think of You;” and my favorite from the Control album, “Lets Wait Awhile.”

Janet took a two year break from the music scene after her breakthrough success, which was not a bad idea given some of the music that came out in 1988 and 1989. By fall of that year, however, she came screaming back with Rhythm Nation, which, till this day, remains one of the best albums ever made. Janet’s songs about racial harmony, children’s issues, and the “State of The World” were well written, sung with passion, and were on the lips of almost every music loving American. The album turned her from Michael’s little sister into her own superstar. The concert tour that supported this Grammy winning album was one of the most sought-after tickets of 1990. I attended her show at Poplar Creek in Chicago and along with 20,000 other people, danced, sang, and were blown away by Janet’s amazing performance. There was some controversy about her lipsyncing, but nobody really seemed to mind. Lets be honest: Janet is more of a performer than singer, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, there was one vocal performance that night which really stood out: “Come Back To Me.” It was obvious Janet wasn’t lipsynching; she was singing from the heart. Even though my knowledge of music was very limited then, I realized that it is more important to touch people with your voice rather than act like a human dog whistle, something the just emerging Mariah Carey was very good at then.

Soon, it was Strike 1 for Janet: she lost weight. She had never looked so beautiful. I still remember my roommates and I at Northern Illinois University drooling over the “Love Will Never Do Without You” video. Commercially, she hit a gold mine. Artistically, however, her losing weight forced people to concentrate more on her looks than her music. With the exception of The Velvet Rope, which came out in 1997, it forced Janet to concentrate on her looks more than her music as well. However, when 1993 came around, Janet took full advantage of the downfall of pop music’s biggest icon, Madonna (who would make a comeback, and several others in the years to come). Madonna was the world’s greatest sex pot, but, unfortunately, didn’t know where to stop and soon started appearing naked everywhere. The world soon looked for another sexpot that was similar to Madonna and Janet eagerly stepped in with her Janet album, which featured screaming orgasms, ejaculations, one night stands, etc. The public ate it up like apple pie and Janet was the biggest superstar on the planet. She was considered the “only cool” Jackson. Despite her sexually charged image, most people considered it a sign of Janet becoming a true adult and she was on every hot list that can be imagined. No wonder why she was able to take a two year break without being forgotten.

The Velvet Rope could have easily been Strike 2 for Janet. “Got Till It’s Gone,” the first single, hit the airwaves in August of 1997 and disappeared almost instantly. The response was so poor that Virgin Records decided not to release a physical single for the song, hoping everybody would forget about this minor career mistake and move on. “Together Again,” the follow up single, saved Janet from further backlash and proved that Janet Jackson was anything but “over with.” Janet’s dedication to the friends she lost because of Aids proved to be anything but the usual sappy, repetitive songs that Elton John, George Michael, and others put out in previous years. In fact, the song was a celebration: “One day we’ll be together again. Cause..every where I go, every smile I see, your star is there, shining back at me.” Even though there was a slight backlash because of Janet’s increasingly sexual image (her act now included lesbianism, sadomasochism, etc.), the music overshadowed it all. Even though the album didn’t sell near as much as Janet’s previous albums, it was still considered an artistic hightlight and spawned three top ten singles, something which was rare for an album released during the later part of the 90s.

As the new decade rolled in, Janet’s superstardom still seemed unbreakable. In the Summer of 2000, Janet costared along with Eddie Murphy in Nutty Professor 2: The Clumps and scored a number one hit from the soundtrack. By the end of the year, fans were looking forward to a new album.

The year 2001 was strike 2 for Janet. Even though her new album, All For You, and its title track hit number one, fans and critics started to wonder if Janet was starting to "lose" it. Many considered the album's sexual theme repetitive while others found songs such as "When We Ooooo" and "Son of a Gun" lacking the same quality of Janet's previous hits. For the first time in Janet's career, her concerts showed mixed box office results. However, All For You still sold close to 3 million copies in the U.S. and that was an accomplishment for someone who had been recording albums for nearly twenty years.

February 1, 2004: Strike 3! Actually, this is considered the "911" of Janet's career and freedom of speech on television as well. During the Super Bowl Halftime Show, Janet decided to shock the world by having Justin Timberlake violently rip off a piece of clothing covering her right breast, exposing it sagging with a nipple ring. An international uproar ensued and Janet instantly became the most scorned person on the planet. Rather than living up to her stunt, Janet soon issued a pathetic apology, said it was an "accident," and thus the term "wardrobe malfunction" became a historic new term. Besides the devistating effects this had on her upcoming Damita Jo album, the planned publicity stunt was the beginning of censorship that was considered new wave McCarthyism. Janet tried to calm the fires by blaming the uproar on George W. Bush, racism and everything else but made matters even worse for her.

In 2006, after seeing previously fallen stars Mariah Carey and Madonna make major comebacks, it seemed natural that Janet would follow their footsteps. While the "wardrobe malfunction" was still in people's minds, Janet thought she would cover it up by gaining over 100 pounds, losing it, and then appearing as the new weightloss queen on the cover of US Weekly. This might have worked if Janet had followed it up with some good music. The song "Call on Me," the first single from 20 Years Old, bombed so badly that even MTV refused to play it. "So Excited," the second single, bombed even worse. After appearing on Oprah, Janet's 20 Years Old was expected to sell at least 350,000 copies in its first week. Unfortunately, the album didn't even sell 300,000 copies and instantly declined on the charts.

Has the door permanently closed for Janet Jackson? According to many, it has. However, the fact that the world loves comebacks as much as they love superstar downfalls could eventually open a new door for Janet. Just ask Cher, Mariah Carey, Tina Turner and others who carefully crafted major comebacks simply by reminding the world why they became superstars in the first place. I'm sure that Janet has finally realized that appearing half naked on different magazines isn't working anymore. She needs to fire her publicist and manager. She needs to disassociate herself with that musically utalented midget, Jermain Dupri. Then, after taking some time off, Janet needs to find producers who will help her craft the thoughtful, catchy tunes that made her a superstar in the first place. When this happens, we will all forgive Janet for the Damita Ho era.