The north road
Wide open spaces.
Today's Document
Mike Driver
official daine visual archive
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
will byers stan first human second
hello vonnie

Andulka
ojovivo
Noah Kahan
taylor price

titsay
we're not kids anymore.

if i look back, i am lost

No title available
No title available

No title available
$LAYYYTER
Three Goblin Art
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

shark vs the universe

seen from Venezuela
seen from Mexico
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Thailand

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
@arkapsengupta
The north road
Wide open spaces.
Rush: A Great Hollywood Entertainment
So this is what Hollywood is for. It’s easy to forget, especially on the heels of a movie summer as disappointing as this last one, that there are certain things that big-studio motion pictures can do very well.
Take Rush, the latest film from director Ron Howard and easily one of his best. This “based on a true story” auto-racing movie does a number of things very well. But just as important to the movie’s success are the things it declines to do at all.
Read more. [Image: Universal]
Everything about this review is correct. Except for the fact that this isn’t a Hollywood movie. It is a British film, funded mostly outside the studio system.
Hollywood, in fact, doesn’t make these movies anymore.
In Defense of the Humanities Ph.D.: It’s No Crazier Than Becoming a Journalist
“Why haven’t humanities Ph.D. programs collapsed?” asks my colleague Jordan Weissmann this week. It’s a question that has drawn a host of reader responses, from “the job market is scary” to the point that the programs are funded, to “you don’t even hear how bad it is till you’re stuck in the program.”
Read more. [Image: Wikimedia Commons]
If we need to defend the humanities, then we’ve already lost.
Yes, this type of post, take 10,000. Only this one is almost too boring to even bring up — except for this line by Dylan Tweney:
Finally, there’s the question of the iWatch. Many of us expected Apple to launch a wrist-mounted wearable device this week, but there wasn’t a peep about this in Cupertino on Tuesday.
Many of us? Did even a single person who knows the slightest bit about Apple expect to see an “iWatch” unveiled last week? The answer is the same as it is to Tweney’s clickbait headline.
I will never understand the blind spot even brilliant people have for Apple. The article brings up very reasonable points: pricing on the 5c is too high and 64 bit on a phone is too soon (I wonder if anybody would be having this conversation if the A7 chip were introduced on the iPad first). Android is massively outselling iOS and Apple is in incremental mode.
Apple is a company that thrives on controlling and streamlining the eco-system. Until it makes inroads to the living room (where the big game hunting will really happen) it will remain in incremental mode.
“I’ve personally reached the point where the sound of MP3s are so uncompelling, because so much is lost in translation...I still record and mix everything to tape, and I think it makes a difference. But by the time it gets reduced down to an MP3, it’s like you’ve shaved off all the nuance. The first thing that gets thrown out is the air that was in the room of whatever instrument or musician that was being recorded — that negative space in a song that takes the most information to capture."
Beck
I've been saying forever that the shift to MP3 driven portable music is a double edged sword. While people may be listening to more because music is so much more portable, that portability (in the form of MP3's) also serves to decrease the sonic quality of what we listen to. Streaming is further exacerbating things.
This has had upstream effects on the music production process. In an industry where revenues have cratered and earnings have decreased (for artists and labels alike), cost cutting is paramount. And as is implied by Beck's statement, many labels and artists are cutting corners in the production process. Because when the tracks are converted to shitty sounding MP3's, nobody will notice.
It will be interesting to see how Pono affects this ecosystem, and if anyone will be willing to pay for it. Count me unconvinced.
Had never heard this without the words. Completely changes the complexion, yet every bit as remarkable.
Mike Masnick:
Ministry of Sound, the well-known nightclub/record label in London that puts together various compilations of dance music is suing Spotify, claiming copyright infringement in a case that will fascinate copyright fanatics. This one goes a few layers deep, so stick with it: MoS is not suing because the music on Spotify is unauthorized. Nor is it suing because of anything that Spotify itself did. Rather, it’s suing because some users of Spotify have put together and published “playlists” (a feature found on pretty much any music playing software ever) that mimic some of the compilations that MoS has released. Again, the music itself is all legally authorized and licensed to be on Spotify. The complaint from MoS is merely that some Spotify users have put them together in the same order.
Probably a bad sign if your business is so reliant on the order in which music is ordered that you feel compelled to sue to protect such nonsense.
I tend to disagree with both of the comments below. Not only is the knowledgeable curating of tracks central to what Ministry of Sound does, this feels to me like a fairly straightforward technical solution: when a user creates a playlist that perfectly resembles an existing CD, force the CD on them. Then let them add tracks, subtract tracks, rearrange tracks to their heart's content.
But the fact is, if a user gets all the songs right, and the order right, it is probably because they are trying to mimic the CD. Might as well give the creator of that CD credit for such.
Not all copyright claims are rooted in an inherent lack of confidence in a value proposition.
They like friends coming to play with them.
Welcome Özil.
Özil!!!
First Class Swag: Airline Amenity Bags Then and Now
IPad sleeve as amenities bag in an effort to maximize brand exposure.
The Chicago Cubs, Arsenal, and the obstructionist opacity of conflicted principle
The European soccer press (an institution with the collective scruples of your average National Enquirer reporter) has written its usual cynical and shallow narrative of the summer. If they are to be believed, the summer transfer window has been overseen by a group of people motivated by greed, bitterness, lust, panic and arrogance. A group for whom exorcising (or in the case of Arsene Wenger wallowing in) personal demons is as motivating a factor as winning on field. If you ever need to do a movie about a $500 billion business in the vein of King Lear, this lot should be your screenwriters of choice.
There is an unprecedented level of have/have-not emerging in European soccer, fueled by TV money and global merchandising (and also by oil, aluminum, unsustainable levels of debt and god knows what else). In American baseball, you see a similar dynamic with big market teams able to vastly outspend small market teams. While baseball has implemented some ways of leveling out the playing field via amateur player drafts, etc., by and large, small market teams that have been successful (and many have) have relied on developing and adhering to very specific strategies that rely on player scouting and development.
Which brings us to our point. The Chicago Cubs have witnessed a championship drought that makes Arsenal's look like a sunny week. It has been over 100 years and counting. Countless owners and rebuilds later, the Cubs are two years into yet another "project". What is interesting about this time around has been the fervor with which its fan base and the media has bought into the strategy. Cubs fans may be used to finishing near the bottom, but the collective fervor with which they are willing to do so this time around is unprecedented.
There are three reasons for this. First, the new ownership spared no expense in bringing in a management team that has had unparalleled success. When they talk, they talk from experience. And you can't help but believe them. Second, management has been as transparent as it can be about what the strategy is. They have gone on record discussing where they are investing, how that investment will pay off and when they plan on turning on the money spigot. Third, they have set a timeline. "If we aren't regularly competing with the best by 2015, we've done something wrong" is the overt party line.
Stan, Ivan, Arsene and Arsenal have much to learn from this. In the gossip driven, media fueled cauldron that is European soccer, many see keeping your mouth shut as a character trait above all others. But at some point, a principled desire to stay above the fray simply looks like unreasonable opacity...or worse, incompetence. And while Arsene may have the self confidence to withstand daily media mischaracterization, he must surely also realize that the Arsenal fan base is a much more important constituency that needs to be better kept in on the loop.
There are multiple reasons why Arsene may be playing the transfer market the way he is. Perhaps he thinks his squad is strong enough quality wise. Perhaps he thinks the squad is not nearly as thin as we think it is because of what he knows about injuries, etc. Or perhaps there is a larger strategy at work: perhaps he is purposefully staying out of the summer transfer market because he sees more value in the winter market. Or maybe as an organization, we have a lot of faith in our youngsters who could be given first team shirts.
Whatever the reason, what is clear is that Arsene is treating Arsenal fans with the same contempt with which he treats the press. Because we are just as much in the dark about what is real. Arsenal as an organization should illuminate its fanbase about its rationale. Whether the fans agree is their problem. Ensuring they know is Arsenal's. If the fans don't get information from the horse's mouth, they will be forced to continue to get their information from the gossip mongers. And at some point, that becomes obstructionist to all of Arsenal-dom.
"We will only sign top top top players"; "We will sign quality"; "There will be players coming in"; "We are strong enough". Fuck you Arsene. Enough is enough. We are grown ups. We can handle the truth. We may even still love you enough to trust what you say. The real question is, when will you trust us?
Misanthropic Movie Musings: White House Down
The Roland Emmerich narrative depends as much on big explosions, epic consequences and rah rah American-ism as it does on timing. The Day After Tomorrow came just two years before An Inconvenient Truth, when talk of climate change hit fever pitch. Independence Day banked on a tech bubble fueled America which, with its surging tax revenues and declining national debt levels was a pretty damn good place to be in the mid-90's. Even 2012 reflected the global unease the world felt as the great recession started to rear its ugly head.
Reflecting the zeitgeist is an integral part of the Roland Emmerich formula.
White House Down is at worst a small failure in movie making. It isn't up to snuff with Emmerich's usually competent storytelling against the backdrop of epic, global disaster and if I was Jamie Foxx, I would deliver a bloody horse head to James Vanderbilt in the middle of the night. On the other hand, the action sequences are entertaining, Jamie Foxx and Channing Tatum have genuine chemistry and Tatum is milking what Channing Tatum does well for all its worth right now. Really not bad middle of the summer fare.
But it is a huge disaster in reflecting the zeitgeist. A democratic, peace loving African American president who talks about hope and change and rails against the evil military establishment? That was so 2009. America has moved on. An evil military industrial complex generally makes for a dependable villain. But while the public may not have become outright adherents to realpolitik, they have certainly become more comfortable with a slightly sinister military complex so long as the complex keeps them safe.
If there is a policy takeaway from this film and its box office numbers (and why shouldn't there be!), it is that America isn't interested in sweeping peace in the Mid-East. Maybe Sony could have wrung another $50 million out of this movie if they had made the villain investment bankers. I hear Occupy Wall Street still has legs.
Maybe I am a more visual person, or maybe it is because of how Twitter has been co-opted by the social-atti, but I find the storytelling constraints of Vine infinitely more interesting than the storytelling constraints of 140 characters.
This GE campaign organically integrates a trifecta of social network platforms (Twitter, Tumblr and Vine) around a crowd sourced content campaign. It is geeky nerd porn and vaguely hipsterish in the way it harkens back to a rather colloquial part of all of our childhoods. Yet the content is compelling to watch even for the non-geek in a Eepybird kind of way. GE more recently appears to be consciously trying to grab a brand space that Intel used to hold convincingly but has more recently vacated: the intersection of brilliance, creativity, inspriation and human impact. The campaign is a great physical embodiment of "imagination at work". (I don't know if this is still the "official" tagline?)
Vine is a great platform for driving crowd sourced content because it eliminates the technical issues around content creation and forces the creators to focus on the storytelling. It also forces a form factor that is easy to digest by the audience with minimal investment.
Rolling Stone is on the hunt for someone to head up an as-of-yet unlaunched content studio that will create branded content for clients. The magazine is playing catch-up to digital-native publications like Gawker and BuzzFeed, and newer music-publications like Pitchfork and Complex, which are already creating content for brands.
There is a trend among media outlets that integrates their programming development strategy deeply into their branded entertainment efforts. They see the endeavor a bit like paid R&D: experiment with video formats and content paradigms and get the brand to pay for it. Often, their branded entertainment content is also their most visible video programming. I find this approach highly problematic.
Programming's goal is to drive viewership. Branded entertainment's goal is to elevate brand visibility. Programming's goal is to create ad inventory. Branded entertainment's goal is to sell ad inventory. Programming is developed based on strategic imperatives around audience composition and a network's brand. Branded entertainment is developed based on a brief or an RFP - it always starts with an advertiser's strategic or tactical imperative.
Some would argue that at the end of the day, programming and branded entertainment are rooted in the same thing: getting people to watch and engage. The problem is, the network is always trying to engage its audience while the brand is trying to engage its consumers. This may seem semantic, but the distinction is real, and the tensions that arise are often contradictory.
The plight of a Rolling Stone is really not that different from the plight of an AMC. Like AMC before it, Rolling Stone is a premium brand with an engaged audience that is suffering from intense competition for eyeball monetization. Whether it is AMC, NatGeo, IFC or TVLand, every successful media transformation has occurred as a result of successfully making huge bets on breakthrough content that drives viewership.
I don't think the differences between the TV and digital content landscape are large enough to invalidate the strategies of one in the realm of the other. And to me, the more sophisticated emerging model is that of Participant Media's pivot TV. At Pivot, Evan Shapiro (formerly of Sundance/IFC) is making significant investments in programming, based on what he believes Pivot's audience will find relevant and authentic, and is using production and branded entertainment as a way to reinvent the :30 second commercial pod business. Branded entertainment is helping to sell the ad inventory programming creates.
Ultimately, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork and other digital media outlets will need to develop content strategies that work for their audience. This strategy will need to account for the media brand's voice and POV, but will also need to be rooted in an understanding of who its audience is and blue sky notions around what they find relevant and authentic.
Beyond that, they will of course need to figure out what the content funding model is. Perhaps it is selling ad inventory (traditionally or via "branded entertainment"). Perhaps it getting the audience to pay for it (e.g. HBO, Sundance, etc.). One thing is certain: there are no "paid R&D" shortcuts. Each will all need to invest significantly in developing breakthrough content who's sole purpose is to engage audiences on the network's terms (versus on the brand's)...and figure out where the money for that investment is going to come from.
The Rad New Words Added to the Dictionary in the ’90s: Where Are They Now?
Poking fun at new words added to various dictionaries is a time-honored journalistic tradition, nearly as well-loved as writing about nomenclature after the Social Security Administration’s annual release of the country’s most popular names.
And for good reason: Everyone uses words and everyone has a name. It doesn’t get more universal than the language we share. So, today, when the Oxford Dictionaries Online (not the OED) added bitcoin and hackerspace and emoji and TL;DR, everyone had some fun arguing about whether all the additions were appropriate. On one side are the traditionalists, who would prefer English remain the same as it’s always been, where “always” is defined as whenever that person was 23. On the other side are the people who are right. This is literally a never-ending debate, and yes I just used literally to mean figuratively and you still knew what I meant.
But, question! Many of the words entering our dictionaries have a distinctively technological flavor. They are things we use to describe our interactions with machines, or are used almost exclusively in mediated realms like Gchat. So, if our language is being partially forced to find new ways to say things because we can do new things with technology, and we know technology obsolesces, then are we naming actions and ideas that will only exist until the next upgrade comes out?
Read more.
There is a two fold warning in this: a) beware the ever expanding lexicon; and b) the dictionary you use matters.
No, NBC’s Premier League Deal Doesn’t Mean America Loves Soccer Now
Last weekend, on August 17, NBC launched its new coverage of the English Premier League, after paying $250 million for the television rights to every soccer match played in the EPL over the next three years. Fox had been paying a third of that price to air a much smaller slate of games than NBC will. NBC’s execs seemed to have made a big gamble, betting that flooding the American market with English soccer would draw casual viewers in, boost NBC’s ratings, and increase the sport’s exposure in the U.S. The reward was the highest overnight rating in U.S. history for a Premier League season opener.
Read more. [Image: AP/Lefteris Pitarakis]
NBC is continuing its bet on second tier sports leagues that it started with its NHL deal. Even if you add in $25 million in programming costs per year on top of the $250 million it paid for the rights, you are still probably looking at approximately $40K per 30 second ad spot to break even on EPL. Not a difficult proposition at all given NBC sports network's reach and given the programming and promotional stunts it can do with the mothership channel.
By comparison's sake, NBC commanded approximately $125K per 30 second spot for this year's NHL finals. And it has proven it knows how to grow a league's stature. This deal will look like a veritable bargain in three years.
Interesting look at the process for getting Rush financed. A few things strike me about the process.
The Hollywood studio model has evolved away from a VC-centric model towards a more bank financing model. It used to be that studios would spread their bets out across a large portfolio of projects, knowing that the few that became huge hits would create more than reasonable returns and cover the losses on other projects. The large studios are now making bigger bets across a smaller portfolio that feels more secure.
A large driver for this, and the second point I find interesting: despite rhetoric to the contrary, the evidence makes it clear that it is getting harder and harder to establish audience for content. If Universal is worried about finding audiences for a F1 story helmed by one of the most bankable directors of our generation, we've got problems.
Finally, it is nice to see increasing evidence that substantial business models for content can be developed without the American market being the lynch pin. Add Rush to the Pacific Rim bucket in that regard (and lets not forget about the recent TV properties that have established this to be true). Foreign is quickly becoming the tail that wags the Hollywood dog.
New Washed Out - Paracosm. Listen now. Thank later.