I'm Going Slightly Mad...

I have not been this pissed about the current music scene in quite some time, but Andy Pemberton of MusicToob has certainly found a way to enrage me to no end. Rather than discussing the potential myriad of news that relates to the thousands of worthwhile artists out there, he decided to do an op-ed piece on Lady Gaga instead. BAD.

We go from BAD to WORSE when we discover that she chose said stage name from Queen's classic "Radio Ga Ga", thus trying to claim that the musical genius of Queen somehow lead down the road to such polar-opposite-of-Queen gems as "Poker Face" and "Just Dance". WORSE.

But the final kicker? That the Gaga nickname came from her producer, some chode named Rob Fusari, who has produced such brilliant and musically diverse tracks like "Bootylicious" and "Wild Wild West" (not the good one...the Will Smith one), who, according to Pemberton:

"after noting that her singing voice sounded like her hero, Queen's Freddie Mercury, Fusari named her Lady Gaga for the Queen hit "Radio Ga Ga."

...

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!

To even assume that the talentless walking-STD that is Lady Gaga should even be associated with the likes of Queen is insulting enough.

But to compare her lyrical style (which has belted out such inspiring rhymes like "keep it cool, what's the name of this club? / I can't remember but it's alright, a-alright") to Freddie Mercury, perhaps the greatest (and certainly most innovative) singer of our time is damn insulting to Queen fans, rock fans, music fans, and fans of general art, culture, and intelligence.

Especially coming from a so-called music producer, this is just bloody ridiculous. Freddie is probably turning in his grave, knowing that hacks who write tasteless Top 40 tracks for the likes of Jessica Simpson and The Jonas Brothers is soiling his good name.


Let's just hope Beelzebub has a devil put aside for this talentless assclown.

why hockey doesn't work in the south...

the idea of a second NHL team in the Greater Toronto Area doesn't seem so crazy anymore, no?



as if the "university" and cheerleaders weren't enough of a sign...

Game. Set. Match.

As Stephen Colbert would say to those economic flip-floppers in these tough times, "pick a side, we're at war!"

And the now-more-than-ever frugal car buyer has been forced to pick a side...but with advertising like this, its hard to not fall in love with BMW.

This ad is just too deliciously perfect...Audi has been trying for months to take shots at BMW (even running TV shots during Super Bowl XLIII), which BMW doesn't seem to mind...but a simplistic, yet damn powerful, message now has Audi running for the hills with their tail between their legs.

Not only has Audi changed their ad, and is now being forced to deny they intended for an ad-war (claiming that was the marketing plan all along), they've even resorted to opening up the global panel to Facebook for a rebuttal, but all their scrambling just makes BMW look that much better.

And to think all this work was done by a Santa Monica indie shop, Juggernaut, while Audi's pro shop in San Francisco, Venables Bell, has been left to try and figure out their next counter-move. Bravo to the creative team at Juggernaut.

Miss Confederacy 2009!

If it seems like I know too much about this topic, that's because I actually did get stuck watching the Miss USA pageant this past weekend...don't ask me why.

But it was quite hilarious to watch the Miss California controversy unfurl, the chaos that can only be found when an openly gay writer, sitting on a panel of liberal-leaning Hollywood types, asks a bible-thumping Cali blonde her thoughts on gay marriage. Of course, you've all seen the response by now, the backlash, the name-callings, etc etc. Perez Hilton thinks Carrie Prejean is a dumb bitch, Carrie Prejean probably prays for Perez Hilton while he will, in her mind, burn in hell for all eternity, and Michelle Malkin is undoubedtly hot and horny by all the talk of gay-bashing and First Amendment-defending.

And through it all, plenty of the other Miss USA competitors are likely breathing a huge sigh of relief.

Not because they were thrust into the spotlight into such a manner, but more because they managed to dodge said question from Hilton. While I can't speak to the topic with the full facts, as researching 50 other beauty pageant competitors at work is not technically considered "billable time" (I, of course, beg to differ), it is probably safe to assume that at least half of the competitors are of a devout Christian background. And while they may not have announced their thoughts as bluntly as Prejean did during the show, many probably agreed with her statement, and the cheers in the crowd from the families and friends of the competitors drove the point home.

So I ask, is anybody truly surprised? Not so much with Prejean herself, but surprised that a pageant chock-full-o' Jesus freaks would slam gay marriage in any way they can? Especially one where the top 10 finalists are from predominantly red states (Arkansas, Arizona, Kentucky, Texas, etc.), and where the winner herself, a North Carolinian, was forced to dodge the question when asked later on. And especially for Prejean, who likely ticked off Yes on Prop 8 (next to her checkmark for Sarah Palin) just a few months back, the memory is fresh, and her "crusade" against the gays is all but necessary in her miniscule mind.

This is not to say all the pageant competitors are bible-thumpers: in fact, many of the competitors (perhaps most surprisingly the delegate from Utah, of all places), seemed to have a less religious, more solid head on their shoulders (likely because said head included a brain). I am just saying that most of them are. And while I agree that what Prejean said is wrong, this is what you get when you have Hollywood liberals asking right-wing Holy Rollers questions of faith, in a Vegas hotel (a.k.a. "SIN" City), which in fact just a small-blip in the otherwise gun-toting, red-blooded Silver State.

And of all places, on a Donald Trump-sponsored paegant. Because let's remember what this pageant really is all about: finding Trump's eventual replacement squeeze for Melania.

OK! Blue Jays!...cut! the! shit!

Although my good friend (and fellow blogger) Eve would like to argue the contrary, I am not much of a baseball fan. I grew up in a divided Leafs-Habs household, and beyond the World Series in '92 and '93, baseball has never really been a big part of my life. Sure, the occasional game is fun, cheap and entertaining, but I would not consider myself a die-hard fan by any means.

But in a city where sports is king, and the powers that be that own all of said sports teams also happen to own almost every newspaper and TV station in the country, it's hard not to follow what's going on. Rogers sure as hell made it well known when they bought the Blue Jays in 2000, and have caused quite a rage throughout the city since, especially with the boneheaded decision to rename the beloved SkyDome to the narcissist-y "Rogers Centre," just to guarantee anyone within a 25 kilometre radius along either side of the Gardiner could damn well tell who owns this team.

While Rogers did not seem too involved in baseball operations (which is a problem in itself), they seemed to put most of their efforts into pumping entertainment dollars into the Jays and Argonauts, trying to lure none-to-casual fans to games, as opposed to trying to appeal to actual fans of the teams. And in recent years, it seems all attention was off both squads in Rogers' attempts to bring the Buffalo Bills to the SkyD...Rogers Centre. While it is perhaps better Rogers did not try and run the team like Maple Leaf S&E is doing to the Leafs/Raptors right now, a lack of involvement certainly does not help either.

Which is why I'm so puzzled that the Jays are now wearing patches on their jerseys for this new season to commemorate Rogers, who passed away in December. While I am not trying to sully his death, or his cultural legacy (although Rogers mobile customer service is a HUGE pain in the ass, no doubt), Rogers was only the team owner for eight years. Ted Rogers himself was likely not heavily involved in the team, as his interests were acquiring new assets, whether it be in sports (the Bills), or in his media conglomerate (Sportsnet, the iPhone, etc.), and while it was his name that adorns the outside of the SkyDome (f**k it, I'm calling it by its real name from now on), this seems like nothing more than a ploy by Rogers Media to plug their founder, and as an extension of that, their brand.

Again, I am not trying to slam Ted Rogers or his legacy in Canada in any way. I think the acclaim and accolades he got from all levels of Canadian government, media and society after he passed away was well deserved, and any future accolades in the business, technology or media world are essential to keeping his legacy alive.

But legacy is the key word here, and Ted Rogers simply wasn't a part of the Jays' legacy. Tom Cheek is part of the legacy. Cerutti, Ault and Mattick are part of the team's legacy. Harold Ballard may have been a horrible bastard and perhaps the worst GM in sports history, but he spent nearly 30 years running the Leafs into the ground, and is thus part of that dark chapter of their legacy. Hell, even B.J. Birdie or Domer are a bigger part of Blue Jays lore than Ted Rogers is!

So if Rogers isn't a major part of the team's legacy, then what is the point? To drum up enthusiasm for the team's ownership? To pay tribute to the man who purchased their stadium for less than half of what it cost, slapped his name on the top and got rid of helmet sundaes? To sell more iPhones?

This seems like nothing more than a plug for Rogers Media, plain and simple . He built a massive media empire across this nation, which certainly deserves recognition on its own merit. But to honour him in the sports world, a world he barely had anything to do with, is just pointless, and frankly, wrong.

truly the cat's meow...mix

Just think: it was just over fifty years ago that Elvis Presley performed for his infamous appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show only from the waist-up, for fear his rhythmic gyrations would cause a mass panic across America.

Oh, how far we've come.

This is not to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with moving on from the days when a woman's ankle was considered risque. The only problem is when the culture doesn't seem to move along with it, and suddenly kids are impersonating professional wrestlers on the playground, sometimes even growing up into adults who try mimicking action and horror films, most often to disastrous results. We have done a good job in Western society to now push the envelope so far, the idea of "too much" is now well beyond our reach.

Which is why I am so surprised at the initial reaction to this commercial to highlight domestic violence, starring Keira Knightley. The commercial, made for the British nonprofit organization Women's Aid, to try and encourage battered women to take a stand against domestic abuse, is brutal in nature, no doubt, but does a tremendous job in getting the message across, especially in an age where the average person sees well over 2000 advertisements a day, and can typically recall less than a dozen.

AGENCY: Grey London

CREATIVE DIRECTION: Grey London

PRODUCTION: D.A.B. Hand Media

DIRECTOR: Joe Wright

PRODUCER: Dominic Delaney

When Good Morning America broke the story, the most shocking reaction did not come from women's shelter employees, or not even victims of domestic abuse themselves, but from a former advertising exec (the article fails to mention that he has been retired for over 15 years, simply calling him an "advertising executive"), Jerry Della Famina.

While those who have endured such abuse, and those who work closely with these women, see the commercial as an extreme, yet effective, way to get this important message across, Della Femina sees the spot as pushing the envelope, not just in its extremity, but for its motives. Della Famina claims the commercial will "not help anybody," and the PSA was only picked up by Grey in order to win industry awards.

...seems as if the only person in this scenario who deserves a punch in the face is Della Famina himself.

For him to accuse Grey of taking on this ad for the sake of awards is sickening. While not all agency motives are always well and good, no doubt, for him to challenge the spot's message (that could potentially help many victims of domestic abuse), in the public eye no less, is reprehensible. The ad does take extreme measures to get its message across, certainly, but in an age where "torture porn" is now an accepted genre of film, this ad certainly goes far from going too far.

It is also no surprise this is the reaction of the now retired Della Famina, who comes from a more classical school of advertising, that while was largely successful for him in the past, is now a thing of the past. His "Meow Mix" and Joe Isuzu ads may have worked brilliantly 20 years ago, but the times have changed, and an ever absent-minded consumer needs to be grabbed, and grabbed good, to get the message across. Cheesy jingles and even cheesier commercial pitchmen just don't do the trick anymore.

Especially considering Della Famina has described himself a "publicity slut" in his own books, it seems a tad hypocritical for an aging 70+ ad man to criticize an agency utilizing a high profile actor and director to get an important message to the masses. With the response reaching well beyond the United Kingdom already, and with European and North American journalists covering the response, the message has been spread far beyond what Grey could have ever imagined, and could very well spurn positive results.

So regardless of the intention of the ads, some good is being done here, Mr. Della Famina. That certainly can't be said for the oversexed, uber-violent ads promoting consumer goods for profit that clutter our culture these days; if this is now what it takes for PSAs to get people's attention, so be it.

Unfortunately, singing and dancing kittens just don't cut it anymore.