Tonight I thought I would write about downloading music. No, I am not talking about downloading music "illegally," through the various file sharing programmes out there. I am talking about purchasing music "legally" through the internet, such as the various stores on Windows Media Player or through iTunes.
If you are wondering why I put quotations marks around "legally" and "illegally," I guess I should explain. While I recognise that the recording industry legally has a right to the music it produces, I feel that ethically and morally they do not. In my mind that music should belong to the artists. That is, when it comes to Monster Magnet's recordings, it should be Monster Magnet who controls the rights, not A & M Records. Consider, when you pick up a book by Clive Barker, the copyright is shown under his name, not the publisher of the book. In the publishing industry, at least, the rights of an artist's works belong to that artist. Sadly, this is not the case in the music industry. Long ago the recording industry used their muscle to finagle the government into enacting copyright laws that favoured them rather than the artists who actually create the songs we listen to. While I will not illegally download music, then, I feel that the recording industry has no ethical or moral right to the recordings of that music. Quite frankly, I think that they are worse than any music pirates out there, as they are claiming what is ethically and morally not theirs. Here I should say that while I don't download music "illegally," I by no means condemn those who do.
Anyhow, back to the subject at hand, I must admit to being positively addicted to purchasing music through the internet. My favourite place to buy music is Napster. Napster originated as a file sharing programme specifically dedicated to MP3s. After being shut down by lawsuits from the music industry, Napster was revived as a legal venue for selling digital music. One can buy music from Napster in one of two ways. The first is a stand alone programme that is not that dissimilar to the original file sharing programme. The second is a Windows Media Player plugin. I use the latter myself. What I like about Napster is that it is user friendly. When downloading songs from Napster, it gives the amount of time left for the download and the percentage of the file that has been downloaded. If for whatever reason the download is interrupted, one can simply resume the download where one left off.
Indeed, I think that Napster's customer service may be the best of any of the online music stores out there. As I related in this blog, my niece recently crashed my PC. Because of this I had to do a reinstall. In the process I lost my music licences. I don't know if I didn't back them up or if the reinstall simply wiped them out. I promptly emailed Napster customer service and I received a reply within 12 hours. They gave me step by step details on how to get my licences back. In the end, I got the licences back for about 300 songs (everything I'd bought from Napster), without having to spend money to rebuy them. Now that is good customer service.
The other online store I have used a good deal is the WalMart Downloads Store. The WalMart Downloads Store works primarily through a plugin in Windows Media Player. Like Napster it is very user friendly. It is also the cheapest online music store around--it sells songs for 88 cents a pop. That having been said, there are things I don't like about the WalMart Downloads store. First, their licences allow for one to burn a song to CD only nine times--Napster allows one to burn songs one has bought from them as many times as one likes. Second, their customer service is lousy. I emailed them about the loss of my licences following the computer crash. I have yet to hear back from them. Quite frankly, this has inclined me to simply cease doing business with them and to do more business with Napster.
Of course, if one is going to play digital music today, it is as often going to be on an iPod as it is a computer. To this end, Apple developed iTunes, a programme for both managing one's digital music and media (such as video) and purchasing it over the internet. Before this week I had never used iTunes. I really didn't see the point, as I already had Windows Media Player with its Napster plugin. But then my ancient VCR failed to record Lost and, knowing one could buy TV show episodes from iTunes, I went ahead and downloaded it there. I must say that I like iTunes, but I can't see using it very often. It is easy to use, but it does not give the amount of detail about downloads that Napster does. And songs there are the same price (99 cents). Unless I get an iPod or I miss another episode of Lost, I don't think I'll be doing much busines there.
Another online music store is MusicMatch. I must admit I don't know much about them. I have only bought one song from them ("Words" by The Monkees). They have a plugin for Windows Media Player like Napster does, although I don't know if there is a stand alone programme. It does seem to me that they are not quite as user friendly as either WalMart or Napster. And I don't think they have quite as good a selection. That having been said, I think MusicMatch is a good choice for anyone wanting to purchase music online.
At any rate, I do think downloading music is the wave of the future. By no means do I think that it will put an end to the CD. CDs offer a good deal of convience in that one can simply buy them and then pop them in one's CD Player or PC. They also have such things as liner notes, which digital music does not come with. That having been said, I do think digital music will become incresingly common over the years. The way I see it, digital music and CDs will co-exist in the same way that LPs and singles once did in the days of vinyl. When an individual wants to buy just one song, he or she will simply download it online, just as people bought singles years ago. When he or she is particularly enamoured of a group, he or she might well buy the CD. I find myself doing this. I will buy CDs by my favourite groups, but then I will simply download songs by artists who have produced only a few songs I like. By no means do I think digital music means the end of CDs.
Saturday, May 6, 2006
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
The Mother of Television Has Died
Elma Gardner "Pem" Farnsworth died at the Avalon Care Centre in Bountiful, Utah this past Thursday. She was 98 years old. Farnsworth was the wife of Philo T. Farnsworth, who at the age of 21 invented television. Farnsworth worked alongside her husband in the lab and he always gave her equal credit in the invention of TV. Among other things, she made the technical drawings for his experiements. In fact, she may have been the first person whose image was transmitted on television. Following his death in 1971 she fought to insure that he was remembered as the man who invented television.
She was born in Vernal, Utah on February 28, 1908. Her family would eventually move to Provo, Utah. It was there that she would meet Phil T. Farnsworth. They would eventually have four sons.
Farnsworth was in their lab in San Francisco on September 7, 1927 when her husband made the first television transmission. He transmitted the image of a line to a TV reciever in another room. The screen was very small, only the size of a postage stamp. Regardless, it was the first electric television transmission. A few other inventors had worked on mechanical television prior to Farnsworth, but it would be Farnsworth's work that would lead to television as we know it today.
Sadly, Farnsworth very nearly did not receive credit for his work. RCA claimed that television had been invented by its chief television engineer, Vladimir Zworykin. In 1935 a court upheld Farnsworth's patent, making it clear he was the man who invented television. In 1939 Farnsworth would license his patents to RCA.
Farnsworth also wrote her autobiography, Distant Vision: Romance and Discovery on the Invisible Frontier, in 1990.
Farnsworth is survived by a sister, two sons, 13 grandchildren and great grandchildren.
She was born in Vernal, Utah on February 28, 1908. Her family would eventually move to Provo, Utah. It was there that she would meet Phil T. Farnsworth. They would eventually have four sons.
Farnsworth was in their lab in San Francisco on September 7, 1927 when her husband made the first television transmission. He transmitted the image of a line to a TV reciever in another room. The screen was very small, only the size of a postage stamp. Regardless, it was the first electric television transmission. A few other inventors had worked on mechanical television prior to Farnsworth, but it would be Farnsworth's work that would lead to television as we know it today.
Sadly, Farnsworth very nearly did not receive credit for his work. RCA claimed that television had been invented by its chief television engineer, Vladimir Zworykin. In 1935 a court upheld Farnsworth's patent, making it clear he was the man who invented television. In 1939 Farnsworth would license his patents to RCA.
Farnsworth also wrote her autobiography, Distant Vision: Romance and Discovery on the Invisible Frontier, in 1990.
Farnsworth is survived by a sister, two sons, 13 grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Tuesday, May 2, 2006
Scarborough Fair
Yesterday was May Day and, for whatever reason, that day always brings to my mind the song "Scarborough Fair" The song is perhaps best known as having been recorded and released by Simon and Garfunkel, although "Scarborough Fair" pre-dates the 20th century by a good deal. The song dates back to the either the 16th or 17th century, at a time when the English town of Scarborough was an important trading place. While I tend to think of May Day when I hear "Scarborough Fair," the actual Scarborough Fair was held starting on August 15.
The song itself could have been adapted from an earlier ballad called "Elfin Knight," which produced a good number of variants. As to the subject matter of "Scarborough Fair," it is esesntially a love song. "Scarborough Fair" is about a young man jilted by his lover, who then assigns her a number of impossible tasks if she would win him back.
Although the best known version was performed by Simon and Garfunkel, it has also been performed by various other artists. Sarah Brightman, Martin Carthy, Queensryche, Medwyn Goodall, and many others have recorded the song. It may well be the most successful medieval ballad of all time.
Anyhow, here it is:
"Scarborough Fair" as performed by Simon and Garfunkel
The song itself could have been adapted from an earlier ballad called "Elfin Knight," which produced a good number of variants. As to the subject matter of "Scarborough Fair," it is esesntially a love song. "Scarborough Fair" is about a young man jilted by his lover, who then assigns her a number of impossible tasks if she would win him back.
Although the best known version was performed by Simon and Garfunkel, it has also been performed by various other artists. Sarah Brightman, Martin Carthy, Queensryche, Medwyn Goodall, and many others have recorded the song. It may well be the most successful medieval ballad of all time.
Anyhow, here it is:
"Scarborough Fair" as performed by Simon and Garfunkel
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Tristan + Isolde
"You were right. Life is greater than death. And love is greater than either."
(Tristan from the film Tristan + Isolde)
"All men must have someone, have someone
who would never take advantage
of a love bright as the sun.
Someone to stand beside them
and you just may be the one."
("You Just May Be the One," Michael Nesmith)
Last night I watched Tristan + Isolde on DVD. I must admit that I didn't know quite what to expect from the film. I knew that it was directed from Kevin Reynolds, who directed two of my favourite movies (Fandango and The Count of Monte Cristo). I also knew that it based on the Celtic myth of Tristan and Iseult, upon which many poems, books, and even an opera (by Wagner, no less) are based. Unfortunately, the movie made little impact at the box office and I seem to recall it got decidedly mixed reviews. While I knew the subject matter would interest me (I have always been a Welsh mythology buff), I did not know if I would like the film.
Fortunately, I was pleasantly surprised. Tristan + Isolde is a very good movie. The movie's strength rests with Dean Georgaris's screenplay. Geogaris wrote a tale which unfolds with a deliberate pace, where character development is given precedence over set pieces. Tristan + Isolde is not an empty love story where all the old cliches are slipped into place. It is a romance where the events emerge from the emotional states and actions of the characters and the political realities that surround them. The love between Tristan and Isolde develops over time as their characters develop. As a result their love seems all the more realistic. Indeed, the movie captures the themes of the myth perfectly--the conflict between a man's honour and duty to his king and his love for a woman.
Of course, even the best screenplay won't make a good movie if the performances aren't good. Fortunately, the cast does a good job in Tristan + Isolde. Sophia Myles is very convincing as Isolde, while James Franco does well as Tristan. The best performance by far, however, is given by Rufus Sewell as Marke. Sewell's Marke is good, noble, sympathetic, and, ultimately, tragic.
The performances are aided aptly by the movie's production values themselves. Shot on limited money, Tristan + Isolde has the feel of an epic without an epic budget. Much of this is due to the direction of Kevin Reynolds and the cienmatography of Arthur Reinhart, who wisely choose their shots to give the movie a bigger than life feel without a cast of thousands. Indeed, Reinhart's photography (the movie was shot on location in both Ireland and the Czech Republic) is absolutely beautiful.
I will not say that Tristan + Isolde is necessarily a great film, but it is certainly a very good film. I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in Celtic myth, the Dark Ages, or simply a well told love story.
(Tristan from the film Tristan + Isolde)
"All men must have someone, have someone
who would never take advantage
of a love bright as the sun.
Someone to stand beside them
and you just may be the one."
("You Just May Be the One," Michael Nesmith)
Last night I watched Tristan + Isolde on DVD. I must admit that I didn't know quite what to expect from the film. I knew that it was directed from Kevin Reynolds, who directed two of my favourite movies (Fandango and The Count of Monte Cristo). I also knew that it based on the Celtic myth of Tristan and Iseult, upon which many poems, books, and even an opera (by Wagner, no less) are based. Unfortunately, the movie made little impact at the box office and I seem to recall it got decidedly mixed reviews. While I knew the subject matter would interest me (I have always been a Welsh mythology buff), I did not know if I would like the film.
Fortunately, I was pleasantly surprised. Tristan + Isolde is a very good movie. The movie's strength rests with Dean Georgaris's screenplay. Geogaris wrote a tale which unfolds with a deliberate pace, where character development is given precedence over set pieces. Tristan + Isolde is not an empty love story where all the old cliches are slipped into place. It is a romance where the events emerge from the emotional states and actions of the characters and the political realities that surround them. The love between Tristan and Isolde develops over time as their characters develop. As a result their love seems all the more realistic. Indeed, the movie captures the themes of the myth perfectly--the conflict between a man's honour and duty to his king and his love for a woman.
Of course, even the best screenplay won't make a good movie if the performances aren't good. Fortunately, the cast does a good job in Tristan + Isolde. Sophia Myles is very convincing as Isolde, while James Franco does well as Tristan. The best performance by far, however, is given by Rufus Sewell as Marke. Sewell's Marke is good, noble, sympathetic, and, ultimately, tragic.
The performances are aided aptly by the movie's production values themselves. Shot on limited money, Tristan + Isolde has the feel of an epic without an epic budget. Much of this is due to the direction of Kevin Reynolds and the cienmatography of Arthur Reinhart, who wisely choose their shots to give the movie a bigger than life feel without a cast of thousands. Indeed, Reinhart's photography (the movie was shot on location in both Ireland and the Czech Republic) is absolutely beautiful.
I will not say that Tristan + Isolde is necessarily a great film, but it is certainly a very good film. I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in Celtic myth, the Dark Ages, or simply a well told love story.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Warren Platner R.I.P.
On April 20 architect and designer Warren Platner died of complications from spinal mennigitis at the age 86. Platner designed the interiors of several prominent buildings and one of the most successful collections of furniture of all time.
Platner was born in Baltimore, Maryland. He received a degree in architecture from Cornell University in 1941. He would go onto work for Eero Saarinen (the man who designed the Gateway Arch in St. Louis), participating in the designs of the Lincoln Centre's Repetory Theatre and New York's Dulles International Airport.
It was in the Sixties that he commenced upon what may be his most famous work. Working with a production team at Knoll Inc. (manufacturer of furnishings for the workplace), he created the Knoll Platner collection. The Knoll Platner collection (which has been in production since 1966) was a series of chairs, tables, ottomans, and various other furnishings, made largely from steel wire. Platner not only designed the furniture itself, but the methods through which it was produced as well. The Knoll Platner collection is to be noted for its futuristic (for the Sixties, anyway) look, while at the same time evoking the kind of grace found in furniture of the 18th century.
Platner would also design the lighting and interiors in the Windows in the World Restaurant at the World Trade Centre, the interiors of the Ford Foundation building, Water Tower Place in Chicago, and the Georg Jensen Design Centre.
There are not many modern architects or designers whom I admire, but I must say that Warren Platner was always one of them. His designs always seemed to me to have a sleek, natural look. Indeed, Knoll themsevles compard his designs in Platner collection to a sheaf of wheat. Growing up in the Sixties and Seventies, the furnishings in the Platner collection always impressed me as looking very futuristic. They would not have been out of place on any of the sci-fi shows or movies of the era. Admiring his work, I must say that I am saddened by Platner's passing.
Platner was born in Baltimore, Maryland. He received a degree in architecture from Cornell University in 1941. He would go onto work for Eero Saarinen (the man who designed the Gateway Arch in St. Louis), participating in the designs of the Lincoln Centre's Repetory Theatre and New York's Dulles International Airport.
It was in the Sixties that he commenced upon what may be his most famous work. Working with a production team at Knoll Inc. (manufacturer of furnishings for the workplace), he created the Knoll Platner collection. The Knoll Platner collection (which has been in production since 1966) was a series of chairs, tables, ottomans, and various other furnishings, made largely from steel wire. Platner not only designed the furniture itself, but the methods through which it was produced as well. The Knoll Platner collection is to be noted for its futuristic (for the Sixties, anyway) look, while at the same time evoking the kind of grace found in furniture of the 18th century.
Platner would also design the lighting and interiors in the Windows in the World Restaurant at the World Trade Centre, the interiors of the Ford Foundation building, Water Tower Place in Chicago, and the Georg Jensen Design Centre.
There are not many modern architects or designers whom I admire, but I must say that Warren Platner was always one of them. His designs always seemed to me to have a sleek, natural look. Indeed, Knoll themsevles compard his designs in Platner collection to a sheaf of wheat. Growing up in the Sixties and Seventies, the furnishings in the Platner collection always impressed me as looking very futuristic. They would not have been out of place on any of the sci-fi shows or movies of the era. Admiring his work, I must say that I am saddened by Platner's passing.
Friday, April 28, 2006
The Worst Songs of All Time?
As the old saying goes, one man's trash is another man's treasure. I might add that one man's song is another man's noise. CNN recently conducted an online poll of its users as to what they consider the worst songs of all time. And, as might be expected, there was no shortage of nominees for the title.
As to what made CNN's list of the five worst songs of all time, well, here they are: 5. "Seasons in the Sun" by Terry Jacks; 4. "I've Never Been to Me" by Charlene; 3. "You Light Up My Life" by Debby Boone; 2. "Muskrat Love" by The Captain and Tenille; and 1. "(You're) Having My Baby" by Paul Anka. I must admit that I am surprised by the results. It's not that I consider any of these songs could be good by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, I would say every one of these songs are bad. That having been said, I am not sure that I would say they are the worst songs of all time.
Of course, I am not sure if I were to make a list of the worst songs of all time which songs would make my top five, but I can think of many contenders. "Achy Breaky Heart" by Billy Ray Cyrus would certainly rank up there. I hate country as it is and this song is bad even by country standards. "Seasons of Love" from the musical Rent also grates on my nerves. Rather than a song from a Broadway musical, it sounds more like Muzak to me. And then there is "The Macarena," Los Del Rios's hit which sparked a dance craze as well. I hated both the song and the dance. As to "Feelings" by Morris Albert, I think it goes without saying that it is one of the worst songs of all time. And don't get me started about "We Built This City" by Starship....
Having said all this, in all fairness, I must admit that if I were to create a list of the worst songs of all time, it would certainly show a bias against certain genres. I have said in this blog that I hate both rap and country. As a result any list of the worst songs of all time I would make would probably feature songs that rap and country fans would consider classics. I must admit that if I go without hearing "I'm Not Lisa" by Jessi Colter or "My Name Is" by Eminem ever again, I'll be very happy.
This brings me to something else surprising about CNN's online poll--some songs widely considered classics recieved votes. "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" by The Tokens, "Leader of the Pack" by The Shangri-Las, and "Hey, Jude" by The Beatles all got nominations! I suppose this is proof positive that one man's song is another man's noise. I personally like all three songs.
Regardless of what I think, I am sure that many of my favourite songs are counted among the worst songs by someone else out there. And I have no doubt that some of the songs I count among the worst are someone else's favourite songs....
As to what made CNN's list of the five worst songs of all time, well, here they are: 5. "Seasons in the Sun" by Terry Jacks; 4. "I've Never Been to Me" by Charlene; 3. "You Light Up My Life" by Debby Boone; 2. "Muskrat Love" by The Captain and Tenille; and 1. "(You're) Having My Baby" by Paul Anka. I must admit that I am surprised by the results. It's not that I consider any of these songs could be good by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, I would say every one of these songs are bad. That having been said, I am not sure that I would say they are the worst songs of all time.
Of course, I am not sure if I were to make a list of the worst songs of all time which songs would make my top five, but I can think of many contenders. "Achy Breaky Heart" by Billy Ray Cyrus would certainly rank up there. I hate country as it is and this song is bad even by country standards. "Seasons of Love" from the musical Rent also grates on my nerves. Rather than a song from a Broadway musical, it sounds more like Muzak to me. And then there is "The Macarena," Los Del Rios's hit which sparked a dance craze as well. I hated both the song and the dance. As to "Feelings" by Morris Albert, I think it goes without saying that it is one of the worst songs of all time. And don't get me started about "We Built This City" by Starship....
Having said all this, in all fairness, I must admit that if I were to create a list of the worst songs of all time, it would certainly show a bias against certain genres. I have said in this blog that I hate both rap and country. As a result any list of the worst songs of all time I would make would probably feature songs that rap and country fans would consider classics. I must admit that if I go without hearing "I'm Not Lisa" by Jessi Colter or "My Name Is" by Eminem ever again, I'll be very happy.
This brings me to something else surprising about CNN's online poll--some songs widely considered classics recieved votes. "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" by The Tokens, "Leader of the Pack" by The Shangri-Las, and "Hey, Jude" by The Beatles all got nominations! I suppose this is proof positive that one man's song is another man's noise. I personally like all three songs.
Regardless of what I think, I am sure that many of my favourite songs are counted among the worst songs by someone else out there. And I have no doubt that some of the songs I count among the worst are someone else's favourite songs....
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Timing is Everything
Last season Alias performed better in the ratings than it ever had. This season, moved to a new time slot, it performed so pathetically that it was both put on a four month hiatus and cancelled. Last Wednesday Alias returned with a two hour episode and peformed better in the ratings than it had all season. Many people might be curious as to why a show which had done so poorly in the ratings as to be cancelled suddenly saw the size of its audience increase. As for me, I am not. It all comes down to the show's time slot.
When it comes to a show's success, its time slot is all important. I think Alias is a perfect example of this. Last season Alias aired on Wednesday nights following Lost. Lost proved to be one of the surprise hits of the season and shares the same production team as Alias. The audience of Lost then, quite naturally, stayed tuned for Alias. This season ABC, for whatever reason, moved Alias to Thursday nights. Moved away from Lost and facing both Survivor on CBS and Will and Grace on NBC, the ratings for Alias plummetted. Quite simply, it was facing more than one highly rated, established show, while at the same time it lost the lead in from a show whose audience it largely shared. The cancellation of Alias could then largely be blamed on ABC, who quite unwisely moved the show from a time slot in which it was doing very well.
Of course, the ratings plunge which Alias experienced was nothing when compared to the drop in the ratings which Mork and Mindy saw in its second season. It was a smash hit in its first season, ranking third in the ratings for the over all season. For its second season ABC made two fatal mistakes with the show. First, they did away with many of the series' supporting characters. Second, they moved the show from its original time slot. The end result was that a show that had previously been a top ten hit started ranking regularly in the bottom of the Nielsens. In the end, Mork and Mindy never quite recovered, even when it was returned to its original time slot.
The importance of a show's time slot can even explain why some shows actually peform better when reran in syndication than they do in their original time slot. There is perhaps no better example of this than Star Trek. During its original network run Star Trek performed abysmally in the ratings, yet it has gone on to become one of the most successful shows in syndication of all time (right up there with I Love Lucy and Gilligan's Island). I suspect much of this had to do with when NBC scheduled the show. In its first season, Star Trek faced the still successful My Three Sons on CBS and the hit Bewitched on ABC. It is little wonder it did not do well in its first season. For its second season NBC gave Star Trek a new time slot. Sadly, this one was even worse than its original time slot. It was moved to Friday night, when many of the teenagers and college students who comprised the majority of its audience at the time would be out and about. I mean, just how many young people stay home on Friday night? Worse yet, it was against Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C. on CBS, then one of the top ten shows. Again, it is little wonder Star Trek did not perform well in the ratings. For its third and final season, it remained on Friday night, but aired later than it had before--at 10:00 PM EST/9:00 PM CST. As might be expected, its ratings declined even more and it was cancelled. Because of its time slots, Star Trek never really had a chance during its original network run. I have always thought that had it in placed in just the right time slot, it could well have been a hit in its first run.
Of course, the example of Star Trek brings to me something that has always puzzled me about the networks--that is their habit of placing genre shows with an appeal to young people on Friday nights. I realise that in the early Sixties a study was conducted that Friday night was the best time to schedule such programmes, but the history of television has since proven that study to be false. The list of youth oriented, genre shows which have failed on Friday night is a long one: Star Trek, Beauty and the Beast, the prime time revival of Dark Shadows, Millenium... There have only been a few such shows that have actually succeeded on Friday night. In fact, off the top of my head I can only think of three: The Man From U.N.C.L.E., The Wild Wild West, and The X Files. Here I should point out that the success of these shows can easily be explained. When The Man From U.N.C.L.E. was moved to Friday night, it was alreay a smash hit and had become something of an outright fad. It could have been placed in nearly any time slot and done well. As it is, many of the show's fans protested its move to Friday nights. As to The Wild Wild West, it was a combinatin Western, spy series, and sci-fi show. As a Western and a spy series, it quite naturally had an audience of older males as well as younger people. Being scheduled on Friday night, it might well have lost many teenage and college age viewers, but it retained many male viewers in its thirties and forties. As to The X-Files, like The Man From U.N.C.L.E. it emerged as something of a phenomenon. Even then, its ratings were not spectacular when it aired on Friday nights. The X-Files would not become a smash hit until it made the move to Sunday nights. I have to wonder that if it had remained on Friday nights that it would not have gone the way of Beauty and the Beast.
Anyhow, I am still puzzled to this day as to why the networks choose to schedule youth oriented, genre shows on Friday night when so many such series have failed on this night. Most teenagers and college age people choose to go out on Friday nights. At the very least, they have never chosen to stay at home and watch network television! Common sense would then seem to dicate that Friday is then the worst night for youth oriented, genre shows...
Obviously, the time slot of a show is not the only thing which dictates its success or failure. The changes made in Mork and Mindy in its second season may have had caused its drop in the ratings as much as its move to a new time slot. That having been said, a show's time slot can play a large role in whether it is successful or not. A series scheduled against an established hit (these days C.S.I. would be a good example probably will not perform well. By the same token, a show scheduled against weak competition might perform better than expected. Sadly, I don't know that the networks always pay attention to this...
When it comes to a show's success, its time slot is all important. I think Alias is a perfect example of this. Last season Alias aired on Wednesday nights following Lost. Lost proved to be one of the surprise hits of the season and shares the same production team as Alias. The audience of Lost then, quite naturally, stayed tuned for Alias. This season ABC, for whatever reason, moved Alias to Thursday nights. Moved away from Lost and facing both Survivor on CBS and Will and Grace on NBC, the ratings for Alias plummetted. Quite simply, it was facing more than one highly rated, established show, while at the same time it lost the lead in from a show whose audience it largely shared. The cancellation of Alias could then largely be blamed on ABC, who quite unwisely moved the show from a time slot in which it was doing very well.
Of course, the ratings plunge which Alias experienced was nothing when compared to the drop in the ratings which Mork and Mindy saw in its second season. It was a smash hit in its first season, ranking third in the ratings for the over all season. For its second season ABC made two fatal mistakes with the show. First, they did away with many of the series' supporting characters. Second, they moved the show from its original time slot. The end result was that a show that had previously been a top ten hit started ranking regularly in the bottom of the Nielsens. In the end, Mork and Mindy never quite recovered, even when it was returned to its original time slot.
The importance of a show's time slot can even explain why some shows actually peform better when reran in syndication than they do in their original time slot. There is perhaps no better example of this than Star Trek. During its original network run Star Trek performed abysmally in the ratings, yet it has gone on to become one of the most successful shows in syndication of all time (right up there with I Love Lucy and Gilligan's Island). I suspect much of this had to do with when NBC scheduled the show. In its first season, Star Trek faced the still successful My Three Sons on CBS and the hit Bewitched on ABC. It is little wonder it did not do well in its first season. For its second season NBC gave Star Trek a new time slot. Sadly, this one was even worse than its original time slot. It was moved to Friday night, when many of the teenagers and college students who comprised the majority of its audience at the time would be out and about. I mean, just how many young people stay home on Friday night? Worse yet, it was against Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C. on CBS, then one of the top ten shows. Again, it is little wonder Star Trek did not perform well in the ratings. For its third and final season, it remained on Friday night, but aired later than it had before--at 10:00 PM EST/9:00 PM CST. As might be expected, its ratings declined even more and it was cancelled. Because of its time slots, Star Trek never really had a chance during its original network run. I have always thought that had it in placed in just the right time slot, it could well have been a hit in its first run.
Of course, the example of Star Trek brings to me something that has always puzzled me about the networks--that is their habit of placing genre shows with an appeal to young people on Friday nights. I realise that in the early Sixties a study was conducted that Friday night was the best time to schedule such programmes, but the history of television has since proven that study to be false. The list of youth oriented, genre shows which have failed on Friday night is a long one: Star Trek, Beauty and the Beast, the prime time revival of Dark Shadows, Millenium... There have only been a few such shows that have actually succeeded on Friday night. In fact, off the top of my head I can only think of three: The Man From U.N.C.L.E., The Wild Wild West, and The X Files. Here I should point out that the success of these shows can easily be explained. When The Man From U.N.C.L.E. was moved to Friday night, it was alreay a smash hit and had become something of an outright fad. It could have been placed in nearly any time slot and done well. As it is, many of the show's fans protested its move to Friday nights. As to The Wild Wild West, it was a combinatin Western, spy series, and sci-fi show. As a Western and a spy series, it quite naturally had an audience of older males as well as younger people. Being scheduled on Friday night, it might well have lost many teenage and college age viewers, but it retained many male viewers in its thirties and forties. As to The X-Files, like The Man From U.N.C.L.E. it emerged as something of a phenomenon. Even then, its ratings were not spectacular when it aired on Friday nights. The X-Files would not become a smash hit until it made the move to Sunday nights. I have to wonder that if it had remained on Friday nights that it would not have gone the way of Beauty and the Beast.
Anyhow, I am still puzzled to this day as to why the networks choose to schedule youth oriented, genre shows on Friday night when so many such series have failed on this night. Most teenagers and college age people choose to go out on Friday nights. At the very least, they have never chosen to stay at home and watch network television! Common sense would then seem to dicate that Friday is then the worst night for youth oriented, genre shows...
Obviously, the time slot of a show is not the only thing which dictates its success or failure. The changes made in Mork and Mindy in its second season may have had caused its drop in the ratings as much as its move to a new time slot. That having been said, a show's time slot can play a large role in whether it is successful or not. A series scheduled against an established hit (these days C.S.I. would be a good example probably will not perform well. By the same token, a show scheduled against weak competition might perform better than expected. Sadly, I don't know that the networks always pay attention to this...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
