TED talks, YouTube rants and Mr. Peanut, the mascot for Planters Peanuts, are all signs of just how highly valued the art of oratory is today.
“Yep, even Mr. Peanut (voiced by Robert Downey Jr.) has been seen in Planters ads over the past couple of years giving TED-style presentations; people are spending top dollar to attend a well-presented speech with useful information from an inspired perspective, and the best speakers may be regarded fairly as today’s rock stars,” says expert speaker coach Jane Atkinson, author of “The Wealthy Speaker 2.0”.
“The ability to command a fee is a sign that you’ve made it as a speaker. However, as with rock stars, it’s a long way to the top if you’re just starting. But if you have something to offer then you can reach that fee status, and there’s a reliable path to follow.”
The three phases to becoming a paid speaker.
•Ready. “Picking a lane” in your topic is the first step to becoming not only a paid speaker, but a wealthy one, too. Ask yourself the questions, “What topic do I want to be known for five years from now?” and “Will someone pay me for that information?” When looking to hire a speaker to deliver a keynote speech for a conference, who will be picked from a pool of experts – a jack of all trades or someone who hits the center of the bull’s-eye on a topic? When picking a lane, consider delving into topics including leadership, engagement, corporate culture or communication. This is the phase in which you’ll want to really develop your bona fides, including your material and establishing the goal of how you’d like to help your audience.
• Aim. Here is the marketing phase that cannot be underappreciated. It includes aspects like your website and what you do to drive traffic there, which may include a well-written blog with relevant content, and media exposure. However, the most important way to market yourself is to do a truly excellent job with your actual speech. A good speech for a speaker is like a great pastry for a baker – a quality product speaks volumes itself. There is no better form of marketing than a great speech. Therefore, if you think your speech could use help, take care of it right away. No amount of marketing dollars, no fancy Facebook page and no ultra-cool website can overcome a mediocre presentation. However, when you market yourself, you’ll want to include a number of materials, including your brand, promise statement, photos, a bio illustrating credibility, testimonials and more.
• Fire. Now, you need to identify your target market and determine the best method to reach them. You need to roll out your product and continue to build momentum. Be ready to fire your message to your target market via a public relations campaign strategy. There are multiple ways of effectively getting good attention from the media, but don’t believe all attention is good attention. Carefully consider your press releases. Atkinson says the mistake most speakers make is sending out a press release that does not answer the question: “So what?” They don’t tie it to anything relevant into which the press can sink their teeth. Another way to “fire” is to identify your ideal customer, also called the The Attraction Method, as detailed in the book, “Attracting Perfect Customers: The Power of Strategic Synchronicity” by Stacy Hall and Jan Brogniez.
“If you feel as though you have something to offer audiences via oral presentations, then you probably do,” Atkinson says. “These days, so much content can be had for free online, but that doesn’t take the place of a live experiential presentation. A presentation that is ‘epic’ will remain in your memory for years. The ability to present your content live, and make the presentation worthwhile and relevant, means you can earn a reliable stream of revenue based on what you’re good at.” For the Silo, Jane Atkinson.
Props and good lighting can add dramatic effects like this lecture at Hogwarts.
It’s the 9th anniversary of China’s 2014 Moon landing and it deserves special attention. Many Westerners are unaware of their impressive accomplishment because for the most part it was not reported in the mainstream media. Even now, getting information on China’s mission is challenging and the reports that are readily available seem to be from non-Western sources such as Al-Jazeera or in the case of the following video: WION- India’s self proclaimed “first world news network”.
Something else you may be unaware of
Tiangong, officially the Tiangong space station, is a permanently crewed space station constructed by China and operated by China Manned Space Agency in low Earth orbit between 340 and 450 km above the surface. wikipedia
Should we be surprised that these nations are eager to distribute their news and accomplishments? China and India are the main rivals to the United States in terms of Space launches and exploration and if they are ahead of the West then chances are no one here wants to run headlines emphasizing this fact.
The politicization of space is not a new concept.
Shortly after the end of World War 2, Russia and America (using captured Nazi German rockets and scientists) relied on their own geniuses such as Sergei Korolev and Katherine Johnson in a heated race to enter space and to push forward with the goal of landing a man on the Moon. President Lyndon Johnson called this “the ultimate high ground“. Russia did not succeed in a manned Moon landing but they did successfully land an advanced Rover which was controlled from the Earth by a team of operators. Clearly the Moon is an important place to visit even at incredible risk and financial cost.
What compelled China to show up decades later than the USA?
"It was confirmed as a new mineral by voting by the New Mineral Classification and Nomenclature Committee (CNMNC) of the International Mineralogical Association (IMA). This mineral is the sixth new mineral discovered by humans on the moon."
What can we expect next? China is planning a crewed landing. America is planning a crewed landing. It’s a brand new space race. For the Silo, Neil Corman.
Royalties Are Bullshit: A Musician’s Case For Basic Income….. “This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”
-Woody Guthrie, copyright notice, This Land Is Your Land
Royalties are bullshit.
I say this as a musician, and as a songwriter. But let me go a step further: royalties have always been bullshit. The first problem? They’re not going to musicians, and they never have.
If money is being made, something is being sold. That something has to be a product, something that can be counted. Originally it would have been sheet music, before recorded music was widely available. Later on, it meant records, then tapes, CDs, downloads, streams, as well as licensing rights – use in a specific film, or for a particular commercial. There is a product. Someone is buying it. Some of that money goes towards the cost of producing, distributing, and marketing that product; some of it goes to the artist, as royalties.
Well, a little bit of it goes to the artist.
As Billboard notes, “An accurate map of royalty pathways would be a tangled mess.” It’s not easy to get paid.
Some royalties are set by the government, some are negotiated, some are paid through groups. For example, I license my music through TuneCore, which strikes deals with a series of digital music outlets, like iTunes and Spotify, each of which offers different terms of payment. Spotify pays artists, on average, $0.007 cents per stream.
Example of royalties earned for artist Jarrod Barker. Russian streamer Yandex awarded 8/100th of a penny for track streaming. Mr. Barker would need 99,992 additional streams to earn a dollar!
Beyond that, if you are “fortunate” enough to work with a major record label, there are restrictive terms and conditions. Techdirt quotes Tim Quirk of Too Much Joy explaining the Kafkaesque math [emphasis mine]:
A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn’t mean Warner “lost” nearly $400,000 on the band. That’s how much they spent on us, and we don’t see any royalty checks until it’s paid back, but it doesn’t get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band’s share of every album sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let’s say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.
Of course, none of this is new, really. The history of artistsgettingscrewed by record labels is as long as the history of record labels, and includes everything from the creative math above to outright theft, failure to count sales, or inventive stunts like Fantasy Records accusing John Fogerty of plagiarizing himself. But bear with me, because it gets worse.
In the music industry today, there are a few people who are making money from royalties- and they’re making nearly all of it. More specifically, the top one percent of earners are taking in 77% of the recorded music revenue. Strikingly, these are many of the same artists who are now “at war” with YouTube. Artists such as Taylor Swift and Paul McCartney are convinced that YouTube is making money from their music by selling ads and subscriptions, and not paying adequate royalties. And they’re not wrong; YouTube is definitely making money by selling ads and subscriptions, and there’s no question that most of that is not going to the artists.
However, this is a stupid argument.
It’s a stupid argument because a tiny group of people that’s making the lion’s share of all recorded musical income is concerned that a new service doesn’t adequately compensate them; the major record labels feel the same way, of course. It’s a “war” that leaves out 99% of the musicians out there trying to make music and make a living, and it doesn’t really matter how they settle the conflict.
So let’s say, hypothetically, that we eliminate royalties. This raises a fundamental question.
How do we compensate and credit artists for their work?
I believe the answer is basic income, but first let’s take a closer look at that question. At a glance, it seems like it should be simple: pay them for their music. But what does that mean? It quickly gets complicated.
Part of the problem is that we as a culture equate value with ownership. If musicians have created a song, this thinking goes, and that song has value, they must own it, like any other form of property. But that’s ridiculous, and it’s pretty easy to see how quickly it becomes truly absurd.
For example, take a classic blues song, like Big Mama Thornton’s “Hound Dog.” Is that her tune? Yes! Does she deserve credit for it? Absolutely. Big Mama Thornton has a special place in blues history, and rightly so. But is it the first example of a 12-bar blues? No, of course not. Is it the first time someone used lyrics about a dog? Is it the first time someone used the call-and-response verse structure of a repeated first line and different last line? No, and no. And even though she made it a hit, the lyrics were by Leiber and Stoller. So which part of the song does she “own”? Is it just that specific recording? If so, how much does the bass player own, or the drummer? Do you pay royalties for playing it on the radio? What if it’s on the radio, and you tape it? What if you give that tape to a friend? I know, I know, nobody tapes anything off the radio anymore. What if you cover it in a bar? What if you sing it in your living room? What if you sing it in your living room and upload it to YouTube? What if you share the MP3? Where do we draw the lines?
Woody Guthrie, speaking from the folk music tradition, said “New words, new song.” Bob Dylan took that lesson to heart, both in early works like “Masters of War,” which took a melody from an English folk song called “Nottamun Town,” and in more recent releases. On Modern Times he lifted lines from a Civil War era Confederate poet named Henry Timrod, and used the arrangement of Muddy Waters’ “Rollin’ and Tumblin'” with re-written lyrics and the same title.
I don’t mean to discount Big Mama Thornton, or disparage Bob Dylan. I’m a big fan of both. What I want to illustrate is that “property” and “ownership” is a meaningless way to look at music, because it’s a living, inherited tradition. Everybody got something from somebody. Every electric guitar player owes something to T-Bone Walker, and T-Bone owes something to Blind Lemon Jefferson. Every folk singer owes something to Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger. And more to the point, if you ask any great musician, they will tell you who they got it from. Eric Clapton tells people about Buddy Guy, but if you put a microphone in front of Buddy he’s going to tell you about Muddy Waters, BB King, Guitar Slim. The greats are always ready to turn around and credit the people who came before them, because that’s how a living musical tradition works.
So again: how do we compensate and credit artists for their work?
Splitting the question
One answer is to split up the question. When you think about it, it’s really two different questions. Let’s look at the second part first: how do we acknowledge and appreciate and credit the work that artists do? This is especially important because many important contributions to music, art, and human history generally, were made by people who get erased from popular culture- in particular women, LGBTQ folks, and people of color (Ma Rainey, for example, was all three). They are erased, in part, because there is money to be made by erasing them.
The uninformed still think “Hound Dog” and “That’s All Right” are Elvis Presley tunes. And while Presley himself was quick to credit his influences, most people have never heard of Arthur Crudup, and everyone’s heard of Elvis. Sometimes people were erased several times over; early blues music was driven by women like Bessie Smith, Ma Rainey, and Sister Rosetta Tharpe, who were largely displaced by black men, who then had their music co-opted by white guys playing rock’n’roll versions of the same songs. Some made serious efforts to show people where the music had its roots – The Rolling Stones, appearing on the show Shindig in 1965, insisted that Howlin’ Wolf also get to perform. On the other hand, Led Zeppelin took Willie Dixon’s song “You Need Love,” and recorded it as “Whole Lotta Love,” without ever mentioning where they got it. It’s ironic, since Dixon himself was notorious for taking credit and royalties for other people’s work, often by offering to “take care of the paperwork” on a new tune.
So how do we make sure we credit and acknowledge artists? One way, I believe, is to end a system of compensation based on owning something that cannot be owned. In a system like we have now, where the focus is on ownership of a particular sound, or song, or style, there is a real financial incentive to take credit. In the case of the record labels, you can even get the actual rights to an artist’s songs. If we disconnect the money from the “ownership” of the music, we are removing part of the incentive to pretend that new music doesn’t freely flow from old music.
Universal Basic Income
To be clear, I’m not suggesting artists should not be paid. There are different ways to support artists, and the internet has allowed for a lot of direct interaction between artists and fans. There are crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and Patreon, there are independent music platforms like BandCamp and CDBaby. They’ve got their advantages and disadvantages, but what I’m advocating is something simpler, more widespread and direct: universal basic income.
Universal basic income, sometimes called emancipatory basic income or simply “basic income,” is an easy idea to understand: you give everybody money. Everybody. Rich people, poor people, working people, the unemployed, the young, the old, everybody. Everybody gets a salary. It’s not a lucrative salary, but enough to make sure you can provide for yourself.
First, let me clear something up: this is not a wild, crazy, utopian idea. It’s a serious proposal, that is increasinglybeingtreated as such. Even Forbes ran a piece called “Universal Basic Income Is Not Crazy.” Of course, it works better if you already have some of the social framework much of the world takes for granted: child care, family leave, health care. But let’s leave those aside for a moment to look at basic income from the musician’s perspective. What is the impact for working musicians?
Quit Your Day Job
Many, if not most, working musicians [and artists CP] support themselves with a day job. This includes long-time performers with steady gigs, people who have gone on world tours and recorded on dozens of albums. Buddy Guy drove a tow truck into his thirties. Composer Philip Glass worked as a plumber and taxi driver until he was 41. Wes Montgomery worked in a factory from 7am to 3pm and played gigs until 2am.
Let me tell you: it’s not easy. As a musician, you already have to balance many competing demands: playing gigs, traveling, booking and promoting shows, recording new material, rehearsing a band. Being a professional musician is, effectively, more than one job already. Now try to schedule all that around a conventional job structure that wants you working at 8 or 9 in the morning, 5 days a week, regardless of where you played last night or when you got home. It’s hard to fit all of it in, and that’s without stopping to consider that it might be nice to sleep occasionally or even see your family now and then.
One reason basic income is sometimes called “emancipatory” is because it frees you from this burden. You’re still going to be out there hustling for gigs, scheduling sessions, trying to record and promote and – let’s be real – get paid. Basic income doesn’t eliminate the desire or possibility for people to make money by working, it just means you don’t have to worry about starving or getting evicted while you do it. And let’s remember, most of the money musicians make doesn’t come from royalties anyway. People are getting paid for gigs, for shows, for studio sessions, for tours, sometimes for merchandise or direct sales (in particular if you’re producing your stuff independently).
Make The Music You Want To Make
Musicians make compromises all the time. Sometimes it’s about timing: you want to put something out, and you can’t afford to wait, so you settle- you keep a take that could have been better, you scratch a song that needs a few more sessions to come together. Sometimes it’s about the sound: a record label wants to market you a particular way, a track needs to be “radio friendly” to get airplay. Sometimes it’s just about resources: recording and producing music, even with all the advances in digital technology, is a laborious, expensive process. For some players, there’s also the trade-off between taking gigs that might pay better but be musically unfulfilling (think wedding band or corporate events) versus pursuing a musical vision that might not have a ready-made market. And, of course, there’s that most precious of all resources, time, which is often given over in huge amounts to the aforementioned day job.
Basic income removes the immediacy of financial pressures, and frees up a lot of time. Does that mean we won’t have choices to make? No, of course not. There are always choices, and there are always constraints, and even if we get basic income that won’t turn time itself into a limitless resource. But it changes the balance of the decision.
Creative Liberation: Supported By Research
Right now, across the country, there are brilliant artists whose music could change and enrich our culture in ways we can’t imagine, and we don’t get to hear them. They’re stuck working day jobs, playing the gigs that pay the bills, and trying to fit their creativity into commercial constraints. Pause for a moment, and imagine the explosion of new sounds and ideas we can liberate with basic income.
As a musician, that paragraph felt intuitively true to me. However, a number of people who were kind enough to review an early draft of this essay suggested that my point might be better served if I backed it up with “evidence” and “examples.” Of course, there’s not exactly a one-to-one comparison available, so I’m going to draw on some similar programs and related ideas.
First: the MacArthur “Genius” grants. These fellowships are awarded to people who are already recognized to be exceptional; they provide a no-strings-attached stipend of USD$625,000 over five years. Obviously that’s a lot more than “basic” income, but they underpin the idea that simply providing creative people with resources allows them greater freedom to explore, discover, and create. In a review of their program and its effectiveness, The MacArthur Foundation found that 93% of the fellows reported greater financial stability (no surprise) and 88% reported an increased opportunity to express creativity. Three quarters felt it lead them to make riskier, more ambitious choices in their work.
Some might argue that the fellowships exhibit a selection bias, since they go to people already known to be creative. However, there’s good reason to believe that supporting the poorest and most marginalized offers even greater benefits. Dissent magazine recounts the history of the Federal Writers Project, which offered “unemployed” writers guaranteed income by giving a fixed salary to produce travelogues or other commissioned writings:
…with regular paychecks, FWP writers could experiment with more creative projects at the same time. Over the course of eight years, the program employed over 6,600 writers, including Nelson Algren, Jack Conroy, Zora Neale Hurston, Richard Wright, and Ralph Ellison. The FWP enabled new classes of Americans to become “professional” writers.
While employed by the FWP, these writers—most notably writers of color—wrote fiction that challenged the political status quo, and they revolutionized literary form in order to do so. To be sure, many of these writers developed their politics in pre-FWP years, but stable employment facilitated their political and artistic ambitions—by providing them with steady income, connecting them to other writers, and offering literary inspiration. From 1936–37, between posts at the Federal Theatre Project and the FWP, Hurston wrote her beautiful and troubling novel Their Eyes Were Watching God, a book celebrated today for its inventive use of black vernacular. Wright spearheaded the “Chicago Renaissance,” a creative community strengthened and supported by FWP projects in the state of Illinois. Meanwhile, in New York City, Ellison was conducting FWP oral histories when, as he reported it, he stumbled across a man who described himself as “invisible.” This encounter would be the genesis for his Invisible Man, surely one of the strangest and most significant novels of the twentieth century.
I recognize that the subjective self-evaluation of MacArthur fellows and even the impressive work of FWP authors can be considered, to some extent, anecdotal evidence. But there is also controlled research, and what it shows is the flip side of the coin: that poverty impedes cognitive function. Lead by Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan, the team found that “experimentally induced thoughts about finances reduced cognitive performance among poor but not in well-off participants.” They also found that farmers showed diminished cognitive ability before harvest, when they were poor, compared to after harvest when they were relatively rich. That’s after controlling for free time, nutrition, work effort, and stress.
If you’ve ever been broke and had bills to pay, this is not news. It’s hard to focus when you have a huge bill hanging over your head and no immediate prospect for paying it off. When you’re in a position of financial hardship, a portion of your brain is effectively set aside to repeating over and over again, “AAAH THE RENT AAAH THE RENT AAAH THE RENT.” Or the hospital bill, or the car payment, etc. You know the classic sci-fi trope that imagines what you could do if you could harness the full power of your brain? Turns out it doesn’t require genetic engineering – you just need to be able to pay your bills.
I would argue that we are effectively paying a cultural opportunity cost in the form of lost creativity. Coming back to music, anthropologist David Graeber puts it this way:
“Back in the 20th century, every decade or so, England would create an incredible musical movement that would take over the world. Why is it not happening anymore? Well, all these bands were living on welfare! Take a bunch of working class kids, give them enough money for them to hang around and play together, and you get the Beatles. Where is the next John Lennon? Probably packing boxes in a supermarket somewhere.”
The Robot Imperative – It’s Not Just About Musicians
I realize we’re covering a lot of ground here, and we’re about to talk about robots. So first, a quick recap
Royalties don’t go to (most) musicians.
Royalties don’t make sense because they rely on ownership of something that cannot be meaningfully owned.
This system of ownership creates financial incentives to take credit for other people’s work.
Eliminating royalties forces us to confront the fundamental question of how we credit and compensate artists for their work.
Basic income answers part of that question – compensation – while eliminating royalties removes, at least in part, the financial incentive to take credit.
Basic income liberates musicians from the constraints of a day job and the pressures of commercial music.
Evidence supports the idea that this liberation leads to more, and more adventurous, creative work.
In short, basic income separates the idea that people have value from the idea that they must own something valuable.
All of that has been true for quite some time, and in fact arguments for basic income are as old as Thomas Paine. But there is a huge, disruptive change happening that makes this a much more urgent question, not just for musicians but for everyone. Namely, robots. Robots and computer automation are about to eliminate huge numbers of jobs (think tens of millions). Some are in the news right now: Uber is testing self-driving cars in Pittsburgh. Driverless trucking is not far behind, taking 3.5 million jobs with it. And it’s not just truckers: designers, fast food workers, accountants, financial analysts, doctors, hotel concierges. Thousands of news stories are being written by robots. An Oxford University study estimates that 47% of total employment may be at risk. Even jazz musicians have to be worried.
In short, the day job could be going away, and not just for musicians. The question is, what will we do with these millions of people, once they’re out of work? Will we insist that truckers can all get jobs doing social media? Will a few wealthy people retreat behind high walls and leave the rest of us to fight for the scraps of employment through a fog of financial worry and expensive, short term trade-offs?
Or will we embrace basic income, recognize that people have innate value, and unleash a wild torrent of creative exploration the likes of which we’ve never heard before? For the Silo, Anthony Moser.www.anthonymoser.com
@mosermusic
PS – My music is available on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, Bandcamp, and a host of other digital music services. If you catch me at a gig, you can buy an album for name-your-price. And if anyone ever uploads it to The Pirate Bay, torrent with my blessing. As Woody Guthrie would say, “Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”
A few years ago, Dimitry Anatolyevich Medvedev was the tenth Prime Minister of Russia- the incumbent since 2012.
Before that, he previously served as the third President of Russia, from 2008 to 2012. The Russian Prime Minister has the second highest position in the government, after President Vladimir Putin. Medvedev, the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation comment confirms aliens are here.
After the recording of a 2015 television program, in off-air comments, he was less guarded.
He did not realize that his microphone was still open and stated: “I believe in Father Frost. But not too deeply.” he said in a jovial reply to a question about Russia’s equivalent of Santa Claus.
A journalist asked whether the president is handed secret files on aliens when receiving the briefcase needed to activate Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
Medvedev the former Russian President stated, “Along with the briefcase with nuclear codes, the president of the country is given a special ‘top secret’ folder. This folder in its entirety contains information about aliens who visited our planet,” Mr. Medvedev answered playfully.
“Along with this, you are given a report of the absolutely secret special service that exercises control over aliens on the territory of our country … More detailed information on this topic you can get from a well-known movie called ‘Men In Black’ … I will not tell you how many of them are among us because it may cause panic,” he says.
None of the television stations that interviewed Mr. Medvedev broadcast the off-air comments, but they were delivered to Reuters as a pool signal and some were shown on YouTube.
Mr. Medvedev worked closely with Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg in the 1990s and it was Mr. Putin who ushered Mr. Medvedev, now 47, into power in 2008. In case of President’s Putin’s death, resignation or impeachment, the Prime Minister becomes the temporary president until new presidential elections are held. http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science/2012/12/breaking-russian-prime-minister-confirms-aliens-are-here-2440158.html For the Silo, via Major (ret.) George A. Filer -Filer’s Files 49-2015
Come on, you have to admit. It’s a lot of fun to stumble around YouTube with that old pre-internet habit of television channel surfing surprising you with random discoveries.
When I do, I particularly enjoy reading comments left by others who have somehow found their way to whatever it is I happen to be watching. This comforts me because I know that this method of purposeful and accidental consumption of media is not exclusive to me [many comments start with: “Not sure how I ended up at this video but….” or ” __________led me here.”] but perhaps I’m alone in the belief that spontaneous discoveries help connect me better to the production. I think what I’m talking about is called “verisimilitude” and no doubt as I type this out there’s someone trying to figure out how they’ve discovered the same excellent BBC synth documentary that I discovered by chance: Synth Britannia.
Donna Summer’s synth programmer in 1977 brought the sounds of the future to disco with I Feel Love
Not one to beat around the bush, Will wanted to know what had happened to the future? Specifically the future suggested if not promised in comic book ads to the then pre-adolescent Will Ferrell. He asked, where were the Jet packs, autopilot-flying cars and robot butlers? It occurred to me that if Will was an electronic musician he would have come to the same conclusion that the producers of Synth Britannia did while they drew up the plans to make their excellent documentary: The future did come, it just wasn’t so literal.
1970’s Northern Britain looking like a scene from Blade Runner, one of the birthplaces of future synth music.
To compound matters this future somehow passed by all of us, unless perhaps you were a student of history or an existentialistic, free-radical electronic acolyte or computer programmer back in the golden age of dystopia vision. I call this era the ‘other’ 1970’s.
I have added the qualifier: ‘other’ 1970’s, because today’s media mistakenly focuses on reinforcing the bell-bottom, disco driven qualities of the 1970’s but there was a much more robust, artistic movement running against the grain in the same way that meaningful art has always done. This movement bridged fashion, art, cinema, sound design and of course music and if you want to learn more while being thoroughly engaged, then spend some time paying attention while you watch Synth Britannia.
You might even find yourself considering an impulse purchase of a mini Korg 700S. I know I did.
Supplemental- While I polished this article, one thing became apparent. New music or to be specific, those new artists that are being profiled on national television as new music agents are all lacking the one thing that characterizes the heroes of this column. Simply put, today’s music heroes are not a unity of ideas and expression. They are not bands. They are performers representing wish fulfillment with no sense of genuine attitude or social commentary and perhaps even worse, no sense of daring inventiveness. So far, most (but not all-there are exceptions) of today’s star performers are ‘safe’, predictable and lacking in terms of communicating their alienation. They have become game show contestants. This is because media business (in other words the television networks) has formulated and created what is palatable to an audience. The home video game market further suggests and reinforces created fantasies with interactive games that essentially boil down to a form of karaoke or twister. Simply put, new consumer habits are being engineered and I’m sure they always will be.
So, as listeners, is it fair to say that we no longer think for ourselves and we no longer question what is ‘good’ or ‘impactful’? With today’s de rigueur promise of dream and wish fulfillment (in terms of television shows that empower an audience with voting privileges to create the next pop star) that most crucial artistic ingredient: “individualized commentary” has been eradicated. Even more alarming is that consumers’ freedom of choice is being challenged.
That’s likely because the major media corporations feel wholly threatened by what the internet promises: a vast sea of content that is discoverable and searchable by desire or by chance.
Vince Clarke- Depeche Mode’s keyboard player and future visionary.
So-is it fair to say that we have become woefully inadequate in identity and informed choice? If there is art, angst and message, where can we find it? Try channel surfing around YouTube and follow what catches your interest. For the Silo, Jarrod Barker.
Over the past few years social media stars have made a fortune online, using YouTube to create their own brand. Take a look at how they’ve made their careers and the money that they’re making. From top YouTubers to the celebs you’d forgotten started their careers online, here we take a look at the secrets to online fame and fortune.
Take a look at some of the biggest YouTube stars making millions online and find out if you could do the same! Did we miss anyone? Leave us a comment at the bottom of the post and let us know who is your favorite.
Ottawa, ON – The Hon. Erin O’Toole, Leader of Canada’s Conservatives and the Leader of the Official Opposition, issued the following statement calling on Justin Trudeau to withdraw Bill C-10:
“In a democratic society, abuses of power and authority can and should be called out without fear of retribution. Social media has rapidly become the platform for this purpose, from cellphone videos of interactions with police to social media posts by survivors of sexual assault and harassment leading to the #MeToo movement.
“But in the midst of a pandemic, while Canadians are stuck at home and relying on social media for information, connectivity, and entertainment more than ever before, the Liberal government is quietly moving to radically change how Canadians use the internet.
“In a society that values freedom of speech and expression, Bill C-10 leaves the door open for a massive abuse of power on the rights of Canadians.
“Canada’s Conservatives support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, and championing Canadian arts and culture. A Conservative government would do so without compromising Canadians’ fundamental rights and freedoms.
“We are calling on Justin Trudeau to withdraw Bill C-10 today. If this is not done, a Conservative government will stand up for Canadians and repeal this deeply flawed legislation. While the NDP and the Bloc may look the other way on the freedom of expression, Canada’s Conservatives will not.”
Le chef des conservateurs Erin O’Toole demande à Justin Trudeau d’annuler le projet de loi C-10
Ottawa (Ontario) – L’honorable Erin O’Toole, chef des conservateurs du Canada et de l’Opposition officielle, a fait la présente déclaration demandant à Justin Trudeau d’annuler le projet de loi C-10 :
« Dans une société démocratique, les abus de pouvoir et d’autorité peuvent et doivent être dénoncés sans crainte ni représailles. Les médias sociaux sont rapidement devenus la principale plateforme à cet effet, qu’il s’agisse de vidéos d’interactions avec la police réalisées à l’aide de téléphones portables ou de messages publiés sur les médias sociaux par des victimes d’agressions et de harcèlement sexuels, qui ont donné naissance au mouvement #MeToo.
« Or, en pleine pandémie, alors que les Canadiens sont coincés chez eux et dépendent des médias sociaux pour obtenir de l’information, se connecter et se divertir, plus que jamais auparavant, le gouvernement libéral a discrètement tenté de changer radicalement comment les Canadiens peuvent utiliser les médias sociaux.
« Dans une société qui valorise la liberté de parole et d’expression, le projet de loi C-10 ouvre la porte à un abus de pouvoir et à une atteinte aux droits des Canadiens.
« Les conservateurs soutiennent des conditions égales entre les gros services de diffusion continue étrangers et les radiodiffuseurs canadiens, ainsi que la défense des arts et de la culture du Canada. Un gouvernement conservateur le ferait sans compromettre les droits fondamentaux et la liberté d’expression des Canadiens.
« Nous demandons à Justin Trudeau d’annuler le projet de loi C-10 aujourd’hui. Si cela n’est pas fait, un gouvernement conservateur défendra les intérêts des Canadiens et abrogera cette loi profondément défectueuse. Le NPD et le Bloc peuvent fermer les yeux sur la liberté d’expression, mais pas les conservateurs. »
With 80% of baby boomers using the internet, it is clear that seniors are a lot more adept at using tech than we give them credit for. If you’re not convinced, just have a look at the statistics that MedAlertHelp compiled.
You will see that seniors are using the internet and smart devices a lot more regularly than most people would think. But what’s more interesting, perhaps, is the reason why they are using the internet. In this post, we will go through those reasons in more detail.
It’s Convenient
Raise your hands – who still uses an encyclopedia instead of checking the answer online? Do encyclopedias even exist anymore? Seniors are just as keen on using useful shortcuts as the rest of us.
Consider other apps that might be useful, such as internet banking, for example. In most cases, you’re not going to need to go to the bank unless you need to change your address or get a new card. Just about everything else you can do by using online banking or ATMs.
Easy Access to Information About Things That Interest Them
Most seniors cited that they enjoyed using the internet because it was an easy way to access information about things of interest. We can all relate to that. Just 20 years ago, learning something about your favorite hobby meant finding the right books or a person who could teach you.
Now, thanks to YouTube, that’s all changed. There is a wealth of information on the internet. Not all of it is great, but the support for hobbyists is nice. Want to learn how to crochet a jacket for your chicken? Google it – you will find a pattern. And, yes, there are people who crochet jackets for their chickens.
For Shopping
Online shopping and the elderly can be a match made in heaven, especially when there are mobility issues to consider. Online shopping has changed the world for a lot of us – making it possible to gain access to items that we cannot easily get otherwise.
But it can also be infinitely practical. You can shop for almost anything online, from groceries to clothing. This can be a boon for the elderly with mobility problems or issues finding transport.
For Entertainment Purposes
I have to be honest; this one was a bit of a surprise for me. Especially since I remembered growing up and being told that video games would rot my brain. However, almost half of the elderly who regularly use the net, also use it for entertainment purposes, like gaming.
Communication
The internet does provide us with a number of different ways to contact our families and keep in touch with friends. Seniors are taking advantage of services like Skype, Facebook, and other instant messaging services to keep in touch with the people who are important to them.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the internet is a useful tool to make day to day living less complicated. We’re not counting the potential for wasting time on it here, though. But, if used correctly, the internet can save you time and a lot of stress. Is it any surprise that seniors are taking advantage of these benefits? For the Silo, Tarun Reddy.
If you are a videophile, chances are you have heard of Darbeevision. It doesn’t seem long ago that Faroudja carried the same sort of dare I say “cult like” reverence. Back then, videophiles and home theater nuts like me were clamoring for ways to improve video resolutions on ever larger CRT tube television sets or if you were especially lucky (and had the deep pockets), home projection televisions and dedicated projectors. Sure, some of these displays were capable of high resolutions and were labeled as such (Data grade) but content was largely unavailable to take advantage of the higher lines of screen resolution. The darling format of choice back then was the Laserdisc which maxed out at about 425 horizontal lines of resolution for North Americans or 440 lines for Europeans. And that’s where Faroudja stepped in. Offering highly advanced video processor devices that increased the apparent lines of resolution by using a bunch of advanced math computed on computer chips found inside their products.
Well times have changed….but really not all that much.
Today we have a choice on how we want to watch content and some of us still prefer physical media such as Blu-ray and many of us watch cloud based streaming from our gaming systems. If you fall into either category and are using an HDMI cable somewhere in your setup then you will want to take note of Darbeevision’s DVP5000s HDMI video processor.
Blu-ray has a maximum resolution of 1080 horizontal lines (1920 x 1080) and the DVP5000s is designed to work with sources that output via a HDMI connection 1080 lines. Just like the Faroudja mentioned earlier, the Darbeevision sets out to use today’s advanced computing to render 1080 in a much more detailed fashion and take advantage of all the extra lines of resolution your new flat screen offers.
If you have an extensive collection of Blu-rays for example, you connect the Darbeevision in between your Blu-ray player (which could be a PlayStation 3 or 4, Xbox One- just make sure you select the video output resolution to 1080P when watching Blu-rays). Likewise, when playing games that run at 1080 use the Darbeevision to increase the quality and detail of your gaming system. It has been designed to operate as quickly as possible to prevent any noticeable screen ‘drag’ or gaming delay.
What about YouTube or Netflix?
The key thing to keep in mind is that the Darbeevision will work well with any signal you feed it as long as that signal is 1080P (or lower) and is fed into it via HDMI cable. So yes, you can also improve the video quality of streaming services just make sure you stream via an app found in your Blu-ray player or gaming system and set the output resolution to 1080P.
Split screen and remote control
Darbeevision suggests using the 5000S for Digital TV (over the air HDTV), Cable and Satellite (that surprisingly offer very little content at higher than 1080 lines, ESPN is 720P) and Projectors that have an HDMI input. Using an older HDMI projector? This device can absolutely help bridge the gap until you are able to buy a 4K projector. Some users have even gone so far as to say that they won’t be upgrading because the 5000S does such a great job with 1080P.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCbKXcQBDt0
Maybe not!
If you are fortunate enough to have a 3-D Projector and a library of 3-D Blu-rays you won’t be disappointed- the 5000S can really make the video quality and depth of field shine.
The 5000S comes in a sleek black case, has a 360 degree IR sensor and included remote control, has dimmable LEDs (useful if you decide to place the unit in your a/v rack and don’t want to be distracted by bright lights), is HDMI 1.4 compliant and works with 3D Blu-rays.
There are 3 viewing modes including HiDef, Gaming and Full Pop to get you started on your video tweaking adventure. The handy Split screen feature allows you compare the video with and without processing so you know exactly what setting changes do. With a suggested list price of around $199USD the Darbeevision 5000S is highly recommended. For the Silo, Jarrod Barker.
With all the constant problems in our political system, Karen Sokolof Javitch has released the song ‘We’re So Unhappy with Our Leaders.’
The song talks about the constant arguments between Democrats and Republicans and pleas them to work together to fix the United States of America.
Karen has also released the song ‘Why Don’t You Run For President’ which introduces listeners to the many candidates running for the democratic nomination.
Karen’s diverse creations include songs about exercising, celebrities, holidays, political figures, babies, children, math, patriotism, love and family.
Here to talk about her music is Karen Sokolof Javitch.
What inspired the creation of your song We’re So Unhappy with Our Leaders? I get very tired of listening to the news and all of the fighting that takes place between the republicans and the democrats. the democrats are moving further to the left and that is very frightening. President Trump gets blasted for doing some of the same things that President Obama did.
What ways do you think our government needs to change? Congress needs to call out all of the people in congress who are anti-semitic. They don’t seem to care about that. Ilman Omar is on the foreign relations committee as a freshman and she seems to hate Israel and Jews and everyone on the democratic side keeps their mouths shut about that.
Which candidates do you think have the best chance against Donald Trump? At this point, I don’t think anyone has a good chance. they are too far to the left.
Moving away from Politics, what are some other songs that you have been working on? Exercise songs – for all ages – old and young. I just put up a video for my song – Movin’ to the Beat! where I selected old dance scenes from old movies and it turned out terrific!
What are some of your most popular songs? I have a musical about Princess Diana and I have sold a lot of these albums. On youtube, one of my ‘octomom’ songs went viral and some others have thousands of hits. Again, my Princess Diana youtube videos and my exercise videos have done really well. So have my children’s songs!
About
Karen Sokolf Javitch:
Besides Karen’s 15 albums, she has co-written 4 musicals and was the creator and co-host of a popular Omaha radio show, “It’s the Beat.” Her musicals include “Princess Diana the Musical,” “From Generation to Generation,” and “Love at the Café.” These shows have been performed in many cities in the United States. In addition, Ms. Javitch has raised over $350,000USD for national and local USA charities with her original music.
Yes this post’s title bears repeating. The public’s appetite for failing public figures continues to be satiated. But beyond the face value of these stories, should the public have deeper concerns about their causes and what could they be indicative of beyond sexual obsession? According to Dr. David M. Reiss, what is more pertinent to analyze is the self-defeating, self-sabotage aspect of these actions, and essentially the unconscious self-hatred and hatred of anyone who cares for them (i.e., humiliation of a wife).
According to Reiss, “We are getting away from one on the true critical issue — masochism. It is the acting out of the self-hatred by politicians through their legislation and power that is actually infinitely more dangerous to the public than any particular sexual activities. What more don’t we know about their behaviors behind the scenes and what else may manifest?”
In addition, the so-called treatment for someone is nothing more than a publicity play to help “fix” the problem in the public eye. The idea of his going into an “intensive treatment program” for two weeks is a joke. Especially at age 70, with decades of this type of behavior, a program like that can’t do anything but perhaps a diagnostic evaluation and set a course for ongoing therapy – with a poor prognosis. Otherwise, it’s an insult to the idea of therapy to think that two weeks could be of any significant effect.
David M. Reiss is a practicing psychiatrist for 30 years and recognized internationally for his expertise in character and personality dynamics. He has performed more than 10,000 psychiatric evaluations; evaluated and treated patients from diverse social and cultural backgrounds, and from every occupational field. He is an in-demand lecturer and has been published and covered in academic journals as well and general consumer media. For the Silo, Alyssa LaManna.
My name is Olga and I’m a Virtual Reality VR artist/sculptor based in Toronto,Ontario. In 2016 I was hired by Google to create VR experience for YouTube Plus event. This was my first introduction to Google Tiltbrush. I live painted the Toronto skyline in front of hundreds of people.
Since then I was involved in Google projects and many other events and conferences. My VR works were featured on national media chains such as the CBC and Space Channel. I would very much like to share them with you as well. Since Russian is my native language, I often prefer to speak through video and if a picture is worth a thousand words then a video must be worth even more.
I am very passionate about this new medium. I have talent and humor and would love to work on big VR / AR art project. Perhaps there are others like me, looking to collaborate? I would be happy to hear from you.
When we launched XSplit almost six years ago, we set out on a mission to make live streaming and recording simple. In that time, both broadcasting and gaming changed dramatically, with the advent of new live streaming services, the birth of the Twitch Streamer, and the explosion of eSports capturing the imagination of players across the globe.
Fast forward to 2016 and the world’s top gaming personalities, eSports teams, game developers, publishers and millions of people worldwide are using XSplit to create innovative, hilarious, entertaining and meaningful content that has impacted audiences of all ages. Live streaming has helped bring people together from all walks of life, and with hundreds of thousands of new users joining us every month, that number is set to grow higher still.
Yet this is still only the beginning. Our aspirations for the future are much bigger, as we envision a world where players can seamlessly connect to one another in a dedicated space, share and create content, compete with one another and grow their own communities. To turn this dream into a reality though, we knew we needed the right expertise, technology and people to make this happen.
This is where social discovery platform, Player.me, and tournament management service, Challonge come in. Between these two services we see the potential to create a platform that connects the entire gaming community and serves the needs of all players in their daily lives.
Henrik Levring
We’re going to shake things up a bit over the coming months by combining the Player.me community and discovery engine with Challonge’s tournament bracket technology to create a future where players, content creators, eSports entrepreneurs and event organizers, can connect with one another seamlessly and beautifully.
Both Sean Fee (CEO of Player.me) and David Cornelius (CEO of Challonge), two top entrepreneurs and leaders in their field share this vision to build a connected experience, and we cannot wait to show you what’s coming in the near future. On a final note, we would like to thank our community, our partners and of course you – our users for being with us on this adventure. For the Silo, Henrik Levring, CEO of SplitmediaLabs.
BenQ America Corp., the No.1 DLP® projector brand worldwide, today introduced the Colorific™i500, a completely new way to enjoy immersive entertainment in small spaces. A compact device that combines wireless streaming, short-throw LED projection and rich integrated audio, BenQ’s i500 instantly delivers big-screen entertainment designed for today’s modern, tech-friendly lifestyles. With access to the most popular apps, the i500 opens unlimited possibilities for thousands of movies, shows, apps, games and even live broadcast — all without cables, set-top boxes or streaming dongles.
Cute as a button right? It’s only about 20cm x 9cm or 8″ x 3″
“The i500 smart projector is an entertainment game-changer,” said J.Y. Hu, vice president at BenQ America Corp. “At just 3.3 pounds and 3 inches tall just about the size of today’s tablets, the i500 is a powerful and versatile device for even the tightest spaces. Simply turn on the i500 and you’re ready to stream videos and music wirelessly for the ultimate big-screen experience anywhere.”
Thanks to its short-throw lens, the i500 projects images up to 80 inches from as close as 3 feet from the wall or screen, enabling supersized movies, shows, apps and games in WXGA (1280 x 800) native resolution. Supporting a variety of streaming content, the i500’s Colorific technology features a long-life LED light source rated for 20,000 hours without lamp replacement and is capable of projecting high-definition videos with supreme clarity and sharpness. Its vertical keystone correction means the projector can be placed at an indirect angle without any distortion — perfect for placement on a coffee table. With its contemporary gold finish, it blends in seamlessly with existing décor.
On the other side of the dual-sided device users will find a pair of 5W fine-mesh-covered chambered speakers specially tuned to produce clear voices and rich sound quality without external audio connections. When the i500 is not projecting, it can double as a powerful, portable Bluetooth® speaker system.
The i500 comes out-of-box-ready and maintains its flawless performance with the latest software and streaming apps via over-the-air live updates to provide years of unlimited hassle-free entertainment. It is preloaded with popular streaming services and apps such as YouTube, Spotify, Vimeo, Netflix, Hulu and many others. Also, with available game pad and controllers, the i500 unleashes a universe of heart-pounding games including action/adventure, strategy, role-playing and even first-person shooter games.
The i500 does all of this via wireless LAN with no other connections required, and it can play video or music content from a USB stick or display Excel, Word, or PowerPoint documents without a PC. For even more convenience and versatility, the projector offers a selection of the latest inputs, including HDMI x 1, USB 2.0 x1, USB 3.0 x 1, audio I/O as well as a mic in.
The BenQ i500 is now shipping in North America at a retail price of U.S. $749.
Dinner For Two – You And Your Dog Homemade Meals Provide A Special Treat For Pets,
Says Host Of Doggy Cooking Network
Dinnertime for many dogs involves the owner ripping open a bag, pouring kibbles into a bowl and walking away.
Not the stuff of a meaningful relationship.
Kris Rotonda likes to take an occasional break from that routine and give his four dogs – Rocky, Coco, Kobe and Jordan – a special treat.
Rotonda and his fiancée, Denise Fernandez, prepare the canine quartet cooked meals using recipes they share on their Doggy Cooking Network on Youtube.
Rotonda sees it as a way to occasionally give his pets what he refers to as the “Royal ‘Treat’-Ment.”
“I started cooking for my dogs because it’s a healthier way to go for meals,” Rotonda says. “Plus, it’s just fun and my dogs are an important part of my life.”
His doggie devotion now has inspired him to develop a creation he calls the PupPot (www.puppot.com), a cooking, serving and storage system for preparing those homemade meals for dogs.
The PupPot consists of a 3.8-quart stainless steel cooking pot, a paw-shaped serving base and two serving and storage bowls. Rotonda and Fernandez also put together an e-book with recipes.
For Rotonda, the PupPot just seemed like the “logical next step.”
“I figured that if Denise and I were teaching people to cook for their dogs, it just made sense to provide them with the right tool,” he says.
Dr. Jena Questen, a holistic veterinarian, says taking that extra time for preparing those meals can be worthwhile. The benefits of feeding a dog homemade dog food include reducing the risk of skin allergies, boosting their immune system, improving their digestive system, as well as giving them renewed energy.
“It’s no different from humans,” Questen says. “We couldn’t eat the same processed food every day and maintain optimum health, and neither can our pets.”
Rotonda shares a few recipes for giving your canine pals the “Royal ‘Treat’-Ment” as well:
Bacon Rice Cakes
Ingredients 1 cup brown rice, cooked
2 slices lean bacon, cooked, finely chopped (Retain bacon fat)
1 large egg
½ cup dried bread crumbs
Directions 1. Mix chopped bacon and rice.
2. Add egg and breadcrumbs to rice and bacon mixture. Combine thoroughly. Wet hands to prevent sticking, and then form the egg-rice mixture into 4 thin patties.
3. Reheat the bacon fat in a skillet over medium heat. Add the rice cakes and cook, turning once until golden brown. About 4 minutes on each side.
St. Puppy’s Day Hash
Ingredients 2 baking potatoes (1-1 ½ lbs.), peeled and shredded
Sea salt
3 tablespoons unsalted butter, cut into small pieces
½ cup shredded carrots
¾ cup chopped corned beef
½ cup of half-and-half
¼ cup grated cheese
Ground pepper
4 large eggs, scrambled
Directions
1. Place the potatoes in a colander, lightly salt and set aside.
2. Melt butter in the PupPot over medium heat. Mix in the potatoes, carrots, and corned beef. Increase the heat to medium-high. Cover pot. Stir every 5 minutes. Cook until potatoes are tender, about 15 minutes.
3. Stir in half-and-half and turn off hear. Season with pepper and cheese.
4. Top hash with the cooked eggs.
Chicken Cakes
Ingredients ½ cup cooked brown rice
¼ cup of peas, thawed
1/3 cup of rotisserie chicken, meat shredded
1 egg
2 Tbsp. plain breadcrumbs
½ tsp of dried parsley
1 Tbsp. extra virgin olive oil
Directions 1. In a medium bowl, stir together the rice, peas, chicken, egg, breadcrumbs and parsley. Form into 4 equally sized patties.
2. In a skillet, heat olive oil over medium-high heat. Add the chicken patties and cook, turning once, until golden-brown for approximately 7-8 minutes. Remove from the skillet and let cool slightly.
About Kris Rotonda
Kris Rotonda, an entrepreneur and creator of the PupPot (www.puppot.com), owns four dogs. He and his fiancée, Denise Fernandez, host the Puppy Cooking Network on Youtube. Rotonda also created YouMustLoveDogsDating.com, a niche dating website that matches dog owners with other dog owners.
SAN JOSE, CA – ILOOK, an over-the-top (OTT) pay-TV platform for YouTube channels, is announcing its launch today. The platform instantly converts YouTube channels into mobile TVapps that behave like television networks. Through this easy-to-use technology, anyone—amateur or celebrity personality—can now have their own TV network without the traditional barriers and regulations.
Whether you create your own workout instruction videos, like to cover Katy Perry songs or are already a YouTube sensation, you can now transform your channel into its own mobile TVapp for free!
To create a TVapp, users simply log in to their YouTube channel from www.ilook.tv. Once logged in, ILOOK automatically generates a mobile app and submits it to supported app stores where it becomes available for download by television viewers. TVapp video is viewable on the mobile screen, as well as any TV screen that is connected to the Internet via AppleTV, Chromecast or Xbox, allowing viewers to watch on the big screen or small.
ILOOK also offers advanced features that enable video syndication and monetization. Video owners can export videos into TVapps that they do not own, TVapp owners can import videos from video owners, and for a fee anyone can have their videos inserted across all TVapps as TV commercials. This gives everyday video makers the same exact revenue opportunities as larger media organizations—a unique offering for consumers.
Unlike traditional pay-TV services that exclude long-tail content, ILOOK extends the pay-TV business model to include long-tail video and monetizes it by creating a TV marketplace for video aggregators, video owners and advertisers. Owners of long-tail video are now able to monetize like traditional TV networks with TV commercials, subscriptions and pay-per-view. They can also attract attention like traditional TV networks by co-locating on the same mobile screens with cable channel apps like CNN and MTV.
Following the actions of major TV networks who have recently published their cable channels as TVapps, it’s expected that thousands of YouTube channels will soon follow suit and cover the same narrowly defined interests that are currently covered by over 18,000 print magazines. Special interest and long-tail TVapps, like affinity print magazines before them, will command CPMs [cost per impression- http://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/cpm/ CP ] that are four to eight times higher than CPMs for more broadly focused TV networks.
Peter Redford- CEO of iLOOK
Peter Redford, CEO of ILOOK stated “Owners of long-tail YouTube channels are now able to attract attention and monetize like traditional TV networks, by co-locating on the same mobile screens with cable channel apps like CNN and MTV. We’re deeply excited to launch and bring these capabilities into the entertainment market.”
Television has been slowly moving away from an appointment format and into the anywhere, anytime arena. ILOOK is spearheading this movement by giving anyone and everyone the ability to become part of this groundbreaking movement in television history. What are you waiting for—it’s time to TVapp your talents for everyone to see!
ILOOK Corporation was founded in 2009 by Peter Redford, Ngoc Do and Jacek Minko and is based in Silicon Valley, California. The company provides the world’s first OTT (over-the-top) pay-TV platform for YouTube channels. The platform instantly converts YouTube channels into mobile apps that appear on the mobile screen alongsideTV network apps like CNN and MTV. YouTube channels effectively become TV networks, monetized by pay-per-view, subscriptions and commercials. http://www.ilook.tv/
Any veteran professional athlete who has performed at a high level for many, many years knows that a career threatening setback can occur at almost anytime. Given a long and reliable service to his team, he can reasonably be assured that if something grave happens, he’ll be allowed a chance to reclaim his position once back to good health.
Not so for lead singer Jon Anderson of classic 70’s progressive rock band Yes. Anderson was struck down in 2008 with an acute respiratory failure that left him without his voice and close to death. His band mates, eager to cash in on a reunion tour, cast him aside and scoured Youtube for a replacement. They captured Benoit David, a Canadian and singer for Yes tribute band Close to the Edge, and they went on their merry way. Fans cried foul and Anderson was left miffed and alone to face his illness.
That unfortunate story made Anderson’s August solo show and return to health at Festival of Friends in Hamilton all the more triumphant. Armed with only his magical voice, an acoustic guitar and his supportive wife side-stage, at age 66 Anderson showed us all that he can still deliver the powerfully high alto vocals that personified the original Yes sound. He ran through a 15 song set that included Yours is No Disgrace, Owner of a Lonely Heart, I’ve Seen All Good People and the mega-hit Roundabout among many others.
Stripped of the power of his supporting players, Anderson re-invented the songs- exposing the soul of each one at its very core. It was a magical show and although Anderson’s tenuous situation with Yes is quite well documented, he took nothing but the high road when interacting with the audience between songs. He only expressed gratitude for getting his health and voice back, and more thanks for all the support afforded him by those that truly loved him at time when he was deathly ill.
Anderson earned enormous applause from an appreciative audience throughout the entire set. It was a wonderful sight to witness at the end of the night- a waving Anderson beaming from ear to ear- a man betrayed leaving the stage with the most important thing of all- his integrity intact. I’ve Seen All Good People by Silo contributor and songwriter/performer John McIntosh.
I have been following, with some amusement, the media firestorm unleashed since the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council decided in mid-January that the classic, 25 year old Dire Straits song Money for Nothing must be censored. According to the CBSC, times have changed and the word “faggot” is now inappropriate for Canadian airwaves. The CBC, National Post, and newspapers from Edmonton to Ottawa have all weighed in, including our own Simcoe Reformer, expressing outrage over the censorship of a critically acclaimed work of art and, well, political correctness just generally gone mad. While I agree that this is a censorship issue, you have to dig to find commentary about why it’s such an interesting one.
If you put the lyrics together with the music video, the song appears to be written from the perspective of two furniture and appliance movers watching the early days of MTV at work. They are making their case to one another, colourfully, that rock stars get their “money for nothing” (you’ll recognize the song title) and their “chicks for free—” the implication being that if these two very hardworking fellows are getting any “chicks,” it’s because they’ve paid for them. The lyrics at the centre of the debate are as follows:
“The little faggot with the earring and the makeup (ya buddy, that’s his own hair).
The little faggot’s got his own jet airplane. The little faggot is a millionaire.”
Now that really is a lot of “faggots” for family hour, to be sure. But in context, the song does not read as homophobic. On the contrary, it is a parody of some hard-talking, blue collar guys and their feelings about rock stars—written, remember, by rock stars (and yes, that is Sting on background vocals).
I was in high-school when this song came out and I can’t tell you how many jocks and future frat boys sang it to me on the bus, thinking they were making a cruel and clever joke. The irony wasn’t lost on me. They weren’t paying attention: not to the song, or to themselves, or to the disconnect between their affection for makeup and leotard wearing glam-metal bands like Poison and Cinderella—even Motley Crew—and calling me “gay” for dressing like I was in The Cure. But I guess that’s more hypocrisy than irony, and this is starting to become revenge.
Here’s another level of irony: censoring the word “faggot” actually neuters songwriter Mark Knopfler’s commentary on, if not homophobia, then at least a kind of prejudice based, seemingly, in resentment. Knopfler’s characters—and that is what they are—see the stars of MTV as representative of an easy life, as far away from their backbreaking drudgery as the moon. Looked at in this way, they are not quite the same as the blustery boys on my school bus. But they have something in common: for them, calling someone a “faggot” isn’t necessarily a comment on sexual orientation. It’s more a measurement of traditional masculinity.
But what about blatant racism? There’s another line in this song that’s not even part of the current censorship debate. “What’s that,” our refrigerator movers continue? “Hawaian noises? They’re bangin’ on those bongos like a chimpanzee.” OK, apparently there have been no angry calls to the Standards Council about that line. If there was any doubt before, Knopfler’s picture of these men is now crystal clear…if you’re paying attention.
The moral of this story? I’ll tell you my favourite: It is a dangerous thing to release a controversial work of popular art that requires careful reading. And one question remains: who taught the brainiacs at the CBSC to read? JS
CBSC is the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, who act to ensure that an acceptable code of operation is met for media broadcast. This means that they control what you and I are “allowed” to hear and see. If you agree that censoring a classic rock song because it has been misinterpreted is wrong, please add a “like” to the link on our Facebook wall. It seems that Canadians have been blocked from viewing the unedited Dire Straits Money for Nothing video from Youtube as well, so here’s a little gem to enjoy instead. – Content Producer
Le chef des conservateurs Erin O’Toole demande à Justin Trudeau d’annuler le projet de loi C-10 
