For when one super fast doof-doof is already too much
There is something dying on the waves. They desperately try to be noticed and have their voice and complete message heard. But slowly but surely, these have been dying off. The government has done nothing to slow down this purging. I talk about, of course, album versions of songs.
For too long now, radio stations have edited and processed the hell out of the original, on-the-album versions of the latest and greatest songs. Some chopping are subtle and/or necessary (according to law and good taste), but some of the prime cuts absolutely butcher the song; castrating, slicing, dicing and killing the meaning of the song.
Like I said, some of the cuts are necessary, whether it be because of the language (The awkward pause occurs in that crappy, cuss-laden Eamon song at least 30 times. True story.) or the themes of the lyrics (Eminem's 'Stan' had whole lines severed because of the content).
Then comes a recent-ish (I think) version of editing: speeding up songs. Have you ever tuned in to your favourite commercial station (How could you?!), became excited as they played your favourite song that you've memorised every single nuance of, but then realise that the song seems shorter, that the pitch is a little higher? This is the radio station's fault. This speed-up is done to be able to squeeze in more ad time, while unintentionally (or is it?) sacrificing the very nature of a song. WILL YOU LET THIS STAND?
If you think that's bad, brace yourselves for the next radio WMD: Dance mixes. [insert dramatic musical sting]. Imagine a slowish-yet-irresistible song. Got it in your mind? Now imagine that song sped up about two or three times the usual tempo. Ugly, isn't it? Now imagine the song with a crappy drum beat and synth tune. Scared yet? Now remove the most catchy bits of the song. What are you left with? A shell of a poor excuse for a song. Basically, annoying background noise that will haunt you very reality and dreams.
Why have I given you this nightmarish mental image? To prove a point. While I'm making points, let me dedicate this paragraph to 'Song 2' by Blur. You know, the 'woo-hoo' song? I was listening to a commercial station (Forgive me for my sins, readers!). They were airing one of those programs with hours of crappy dance music and remixes. My ears prickled when I heard the familiar guitar riff of said song. I prepared to rock on to the 'woo-hoo' bit; the very essence of the song that makes it so damn delicious. I hear the riff again. No biggie. Then I hear the same riff again. And again. And again. Over and over again. Then the 'cool, hip' choppy version of the starting guitar riff. Five minutes later (yes, that's how long they repeated the riff for), the woo-hoo bit finally played. Unfortunately, by this time, I had already smashed up a couple of things and vomited in rage, so the song was entirely ruined. Five seconds after the woo-hoo bit, there's the transition into the next disaster. Rest in peace Song 2. Your memory and woo-hoo bit lives on.
How many other songs like Song 2 have to suffer the fate of the commercial radio nip & tuck for the sake of squeezing in one more ad, and appealing to the 'Drugged-up raver who isn't even listening to the radio but is instead taking one too many ekkies and frothing at the mouth' demographic. The normal class is being alienated to the point of [shudder] turning off the radio?! [Dun-dun-dun].
So do whatever you have to do to stop this atrocity. Send complaints. Walk in and complain. Start your own community station. Hell, even sulk around and bitch and whine your troubles into your own little bottle that'll end up exploding in a public hissy-fit. We need to get rid of this curse. Screw everything else. This is the real curse on our fair world.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
The debate gets fatter
Adding some more useless, fatty arguments to the arteries of the McDonalds debacle
What a turn of events this is? McDonalds, who were once being silent over the film Super Size Me, has now suddenly released a multi-million dollar campaign trying to rebut some of the claims made in said film and to just basically try to (in a way) tarnish Morgan Spurlock's reputation vary much like he has tarnished the reputation of those famous golden arches (more so).
Boy, oh boy, I had one of the biggest laughs of the week when I heard this. By the time I visited the McDonalds site, I was pissing myself laughing. This is a sheer act of paranoia and a try-hard attempt to save face.
Lets begin with their treatment of the movie. Go to the site (http://www.mcdonalds.com.au)or watch one of their ads. Notice how they never refer to Super Size Me by its name. They refer to it, but never directly mention "that movie". An attempt to avoid breach copyright laws, or something more cowardice?
Speaking of the site, some of the stuff there is pure comedy gold. Let's go over some of this stuff.
A real feature is the letter that they somehow got from America from Spurlock, which contains him praising the new nutritional moves. A sign of how low they will go in order to disgrace the guy. But still, while Maccas have a valid point (in the letter), at the same time, it may have been a suck-up attempt by Spurlock in order to get an interview, where all the required bits (ie. Anti-McDonalds comments) will be included in the movie, and the excess stuff cut out. What any other political documentary will do.
The other big thing on the site is the 'myths and facts' section. Again they refer to the movie as "That Movie". Some of the claims however, I want to add my own little spin and analysis onto.
The supersizing of meals
McDonalds mention that they don't sell supersize meals at all. Though they can never say that they haven't ever sold the size. Back in 2001, they sold a 'Monster Size' meal in conjunction with Monsters Inc. A quarter of kilo of chips and over a litre of coke, all combined with a big, yet average, burger. And last year (if memory serves me correctly), they were advertising supersize cokes on the screens. And I've even heard that immediately before and after the movie's release, supersized products were still available on request.
Sundaes and Yoghurts
Super Size Me claims that there is nearly as much calories in a Yoghurt Parfait as there is in a Hot Fudge Sundae. McDonalds argues this claim by praising the Berrynice Yoghurt Crunch (Notice the use of a possibly different product) and its lesser calories. This claim however, is a bit fruity. Looking at the nutritional information that McDonalds claims to have in large availability, the Sundae has a total of 343kCal. Guess how many calories are in the Yoghurt...317kCal. It does have less calories, but I don't think that 26kCal will have much of an affect on the average diet.
The fatness and caloric fun of the TV ads
Drastically changing topics here, on the TV ads, the guy speaking (Guy Russo) contradicts Spurlock's claim of McDonalds' unhealthiness by saying "I could have told him that." But Guy, by saying this to us, all you will be doing is making us hear this for the millionth time in our lives. It is common fact that McDonalds foods are unhealthy. We were raised on this fact. And also, isn't it a bit of an anti-ad by saying that your own product is unhealthy and bad for you?
Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that the effort that McDonalds Australia has put into trying to saving a bit of face is a bit over the top, and at times useless and fictitious. They didn't even have to go this far. After all, we should all realize that Super Size Me was mainly aimed at the American branch of McDonalds. The Australian branch isn't mentioned once in the movie. In fact the only time the land down under is mentioned (and I'm a bit unsure on this) is when we're named the second fattest country on Earth. They could've left it to the Americans to pay for a half-decent smear campaign. But instead, this half-baked and malnourished campaign has many of its points lost on many of its targets.
What a turn of events this is? McDonalds, who were once being silent over the film Super Size Me, has now suddenly released a multi-million dollar campaign trying to rebut some of the claims made in said film and to just basically try to (in a way) tarnish Morgan Spurlock's reputation vary much like he has tarnished the reputation of those famous golden arches (more so).
Boy, oh boy, I had one of the biggest laughs of the week when I heard this. By the time I visited the McDonalds site, I was pissing myself laughing. This is a sheer act of paranoia and a try-hard attempt to save face.
Lets begin with their treatment of the movie. Go to the site (http://www.mcdonalds.com.au)or watch one of their ads. Notice how they never refer to Super Size Me by its name. They refer to it, but never directly mention "that movie". An attempt to avoid breach copyright laws, or something more cowardice?
Speaking of the site, some of the stuff there is pure comedy gold. Let's go over some of this stuff.
A real feature is the letter that they somehow got from America from Spurlock, which contains him praising the new nutritional moves. A sign of how low they will go in order to disgrace the guy. But still, while Maccas have a valid point (in the letter), at the same time, it may have been a suck-up attempt by Spurlock in order to get an interview, where all the required bits (ie. Anti-McDonalds comments) will be included in the movie, and the excess stuff cut out. What any other political documentary will do.
The other big thing on the site is the 'myths and facts' section. Again they refer to the movie as "That Movie". Some of the claims however, I want to add my own little spin and analysis onto.
The supersizing of meals
McDonalds mention that they don't sell supersize meals at all. Though they can never say that they haven't ever sold the size. Back in 2001, they sold a 'Monster Size' meal in conjunction with Monsters Inc. A quarter of kilo of chips and over a litre of coke, all combined with a big, yet average, burger. And last year (if memory serves me correctly), they were advertising supersize cokes on the screens. And I've even heard that immediately before and after the movie's release, supersized products were still available on request.
Sundaes and Yoghurts
Super Size Me claims that there is nearly as much calories in a Yoghurt Parfait as there is in a Hot Fudge Sundae. McDonalds argues this claim by praising the Berrynice Yoghurt Crunch (Notice the use of a possibly different product) and its lesser calories. This claim however, is a bit fruity. Looking at the nutritional information that McDonalds claims to have in large availability, the Sundae has a total of 343kCal. Guess how many calories are in the Yoghurt...317kCal. It does have less calories, but I don't think that 26kCal will have much of an affect on the average diet.
The fatness and caloric fun of the TV ads
Drastically changing topics here, on the TV ads, the guy speaking (Guy Russo) contradicts Spurlock's claim of McDonalds' unhealthiness by saying "I could have told him that." But Guy, by saying this to us, all you will be doing is making us hear this for the millionth time in our lives. It is common fact that McDonalds foods are unhealthy. We were raised on this fact. And also, isn't it a bit of an anti-ad by saying that your own product is unhealthy and bad for you?
Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that the effort that McDonalds Australia has put into trying to saving a bit of face is a bit over the top, and at times useless and fictitious. They didn't even have to go this far. After all, we should all realize that Super Size Me was mainly aimed at the American branch of McDonalds. The Australian branch isn't mentioned once in the movie. In fact the only time the land down under is mentioned (and I'm a bit unsure on this) is when we're named the second fattest country on Earth. They could've left it to the Americans to pay for a half-decent smear campaign. But instead, this half-baked and malnourished campaign has many of its points lost on many of its targets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)