Some random musings, in light of recent events:
1) The whole Tiger Woods folderol has done nothing but reinforce for me the notion that there is very little in this world that would make me wish for celebrity in this day and age.
Full disclosure: There is, admittedly, quite little possibility of that happening anyway, but you will get my point momentarily.
Celebrity is a specious pain in the ass. Today's NY Post is a perfect example. Screaming front-page headline: "Tiger & Me: Beautiful 'other woman' reveals truth about her relationship with sport's biggest star". Juicy, salacious, utterly in keeping with the Post's history of headline-writing over the years (my personal favorites: "Headless Man in Topless Bar", "Three Bimbos of the Apocalypse"). Thing is, the entire two-page article on pages 4-5 does nothing but have the 'other woman" completely (and, to me, somewhat convincingly) deny the whole thing. On the Huffington Post today, I read a critique of this article, whereby an alleged journalist "breaks down" the article, concluding that there is nothing in it "proving she did not have an affair with Tiger Woods."
(UPDATE July 23, 2010: This was written two days after L'Affaire Tigre first broke, and well before the laundry list of his alleged mistresses came to light. It's fair now to say that "whether" he had affairs may well be moot; however, the basic principle still holds.)
Hang on a moment. Seeting aside the basic tenet of American jurisprudence of one's innocence until proven guilty, how in hell is she supposed to prove that? I've never met Mr. Woods, but I cannot prove that, either. Proving something didn't occur, I imagine, is a hell of a lot harder than proving something did.
OK, I buy completely the notion that newspapers need to be sold, and that what passes for journalism these days bears little resemblance to journalism of years past. Tabloids, the Internet, and 927 different cable channels will do that for you. However, if we write whatever the hell we want, simply because it cannot be proven untrue, where does that leave us as a society?
Sadly, that's not even the point. Whether or not Mr. Woods had an affair with anyone is a matter between Mr. Woods and his family. That this passes for global "news" is simply appalling. This will likely be seen as a position of considerable naivete, and I could not possibly care less. What do I want to know about Tiger? How the hell he bends a six-iron around trees from 205 yards to three feet from a pin tucked behind a bunker, with a major championship at stake. Tell me that, I'll read every word.
2) Celebrity has become an end in itself. I recall some years ago, when Paris Hilton was about 16 or so, that she had decided to become a celebrity. Through some extremely shrewd public maneuvering, she managed exactly that, despite not having accomplished anything whatsoever meriting it. In other words, she had access to dough, is rather photogenic, and just decided to put herself in the spotlight. In subsequent years, she has attempted to add some substance to her celebrity via her forays into the music and film worlds, and I will leave it to the reader as to her level of success.
3) The notion of the "Public figure" entitles the public to scrutinize whatever they want, by whatever means necessary. OK, let's go over that one just a moment. I will readily buy the notion that certain public figures, and politicians come to mind, do hold themselves to a higher standard by the weight of their office, and the responsibilities therein. If, for an historical example, a President of the United States is suspected of various crimes & misdemeanors against political opponents, and subsequently covering them up (see Nixon, R.M.), then it's damned straight we as the public have a right to know about it, and our media as a profession has the responsibility to pursue the story and bring the truth to light. Anyone who runs for President, or other high office, without knowing this in full is unworthy of the office in the first place. The weight of the office simply requires that higher standards apply.
However, there are different levels of "public figure". If, for a completely made-up example, the aforementioned Ms. Hilton goes to a party, has too much of whatever, and is seen staggering out on her Jimmy Choos, what possible difference does it make? Is John Q. Public going to notice any tangible difference in his life? Has national security been compromised?
Or has at least a sizable segment of "journalism" become little more than entertainment? Have we as a nation become so enamored with celebrity that we feel we OWN these people, and are therefore entitled to each and every detail of their lives? Methinks we do.
Please do not give me the argument, "Hey, they get all that money, they have to take the heat." Baloney. Warren Buffett is one of the three or four wealthiest people on the planet. I will bet he can come and go as he pleases, or at least to a significantly greater degree than, say, Brad Pitt or Tiger Woods can. Last I checked, the wealthy are as entitled to their own lives as anyone else, and I say that from the perspective of someone decidedly NOT in that economic strata.
What gives us the right to demand from certain public figures complete access? Does the fact that Mr. Woods is the finest golfer on the planet, and has parlayed that accomplishment into wildly successful business dealings outside of the golf course permit me as a member of the public to demand anything of the man? It says here it does not.
4) The Internet has changed everything. Well, duh. Of course it has. On the one hand, the 'Net has proven itself to be the most democratic, all-encompassing, body of information the world has ever known, and it grows at fantastic rates every day. You will notice the use of the word "information" above, as opposed to "knowledge". The Internet allows world-wide access, in near-real-time, to damned near anything, from anyone (including blogs such as this one). The problem is one of veracity. Just because Bill Rooney has written something in this blog does not necessarily make it fact.
We as a people are seeing our ability for critical thought diminishing. We increasingly tend to take whatever we read on the Internet as Holy Writ, without considering whether or not it is actually TRUE, or even makes a modicum of sense. Further, the ready ability of "instant publishing" in blogs like this one must carry a certain responsibility for clarity of thought, as opposed to just saying whatever comes to mind, and then claiming it as fact.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I will support that notion until I shuffle off this mortal coil. However, the 'Net has added weight to opinion, by sheer dint of the number of people out there who can potentially access that opinion. One only has to look to things like YouTube for that; viral videos can go from a small chuckle to a national phenomena in a matter of hours.
With that weight, I believe, comes responsibility. I do not claim that anything on this blog is anything but one man's opinion, and I will continue to try to support those opinions with reasoned argument. If, however, I were to publish something saying, "Celebrity X worships the blood of trees!", you just KNOW there's some bonehead out there who will take it as Gospel. You get enough boneheads believing something, and momentum builds that can get pretty dangerous, pretty quickly.
The point of all of this? For heaven's sake, PLEASE question what you read. Not every source of information has the standards for veracity of, say, the New York Times. Further, the distinction between levels of "public figure" is more blurred every day. We do not have the right to take ownership of our public figures, simply because they are in the public eye. We can root for their accomplishments (or not), we can admire them (or not), but we cannot own them. If we do not like what they do, we do retain the right to ignore them. "15 minutes of fame" can pass pretty quickly.
Of course, that's just one man's opinion. Until next time,
Excelsior!
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Deus Ex Machina
If I recall correctly, the above title translates from Latin to roughly "God, from a machine". The title is appropriate, given the topic of today's musings.
More than any other sport, baseball is a numbers game, and its numbers are revered by its followers. 3000 hits. 500 home runs. 300 wins. 3000 strikeouts. Hitting .400.
With that in mind, let us consider the following numbers a moment:
.314 batting average.
99 runs scored.
103 driven in.
32 dingers.
.394 on-base percentage.
.561 slugging percentage.
By any reasonable measure, those numbers add up to a hell of an All-Star level season. Guys have a year like that in The Show, they dine out on it for the rest of their lives.
Those particular numbers also happen to represent the LOWEST single-season totals in each of those categories over the nine-year career to date of the remarkable Albert Pujols.
As a kid, I lived in Cooperstown, NY, for two years, and have an overwhelming respect for the Baseball Hall of Fame. As a certifiable baseball nut, I am loath to place a player in Cooperstown prematurely. In fact, my default answer when asked by my sons if so-and-so will make it to the Hall is, "Ask me again in five years."
One of the many purities of this grandest of games is how the numbers manifest themselves over time. Time is the great equalizer in baseball; at 24 years of age, Dwight Gooden was well on his way to establishing himself as one of the great righthanded pitchers in modern history; no less an eminence than Mike Lupica wrote a 1986 column in the NY Daily News entitled "The day the Doc won 300". Cautionary tales abound in baseball. Celebrity, blown-out arms, and life in general can make you yesterday's news in a hurry. For every Greg Maddux, there are a hundred Dwight Goodens, Don Gulletts, and Mark Fidrychs.
That said, carve this guy's plaque right the hell now.
He is not yet thirty years old, and keeps himself in inhuman shape. He does not drink, smoke, cavort, or do anything outside of praising his God, supporting his family, giving of himself and his resources to charity, and working every day on being the "baddest man on the planet swinging a bat for a living" (Joe Posnanski wrote that quote, I do believe). If he is alone on an elevator, and a woman gets on alone, he will get off, to protect himself from the foolhardiness that passes for celebrity these days.
There are those who will claim that he has used some sort of performance-enhancers; if you Google "Pujols & steroids", you'll get a gazillion hits. In response to that, he has, publicly and otherwise, offered to be tested by anyone, at any time. Until such time as a single one of those tests comes up with ANYTHING, he's clean in my book, and my money is on Albert.
That he is baseball's finest player is almost beyond dispute at this time. Really, only Joe Mauer of the Twins, the newly-minted AL MVP, is his recent equal in terms of all-around brilliance. The question becomes where do we start to look at this guy, historically? It can be fairly easily argued that Albert Pujols has had the best first nine years of ANY BALLPLAYER IN HISTORY. In fact, no less a statistical wizard than Bill James has posed that very argument (in an SI article from July of this year, written with the aforementioned Mr. Posnanski).
Think about that for a moment.
Albert Pujols led all National League players in the Triple Crown categories (BA, HR, RBI, OBP, OPS, yada, yada, yada) for the first decade of the twenty-first century. He did so despite having spent the entire 2000 season in the minor leagues. Thus, his nine seasons this decade were better than anyone else's ten.
Unless there is an upset of monumental proportions, he will win his third NL MVP award in a few hours, putting him some in extremely elite company (He did, and by unanimous vote). Willie Mays didn't do it; neither did Henry Aaron, and those are two guys on baseball's Mount Rushmore.
If he stays healthy (an admittedly significant "if"), judging by past performance, here's what you're looking at for career-to-date numbers 5 seasons from now: .330 BA, 1700+ RBI, 560+ HR. Stretch that out ten years, and even factoring in some decline with age, you're still looking at 22-2300 RBI, 700 dingers, 3500 hits and .325+.
He will not be forty years old.
I will argue here and now that we are looking at the greatest right-handed hitter since Henry Aaron, and maybe since anybody. His consistency, nine years into his career, is just ridiculous. Please see the top of this post for what passes as "off-year" numbers for this fellow.
Oh, by the way, he is also rated as the best defensive first baseman in the National League, and second only to the sterling Mark Texieira in all of baseball. He has won the coveted Roberto Clemente award for his charitable works, and damned near did it two years' running. He has publicly (and repeatedly) said he hates talking about himself, and boy, if you want to make him mad, have the temerity to call him a home run hitter. His public persona is that of a profoundly modest man, whose absurd level of excellence has dragged him kicking and screaming into the spotlight.
I do not know this man personally, as I have never had the privilege of his acquaintance. I do admire the hell out of his accomplishments, both on and off the field.
Please take the time to enjoy this; his type of excellence comes along once in a generation, if that.
Maybe "Deus Ex Machina" should be re-translated, "To God, from The Machine".
Until next time,
Exclesior!
More than any other sport, baseball is a numbers game, and its numbers are revered by its followers. 3000 hits. 500 home runs. 300 wins. 3000 strikeouts. Hitting .400.
With that in mind, let us consider the following numbers a moment:
.314 batting average.
99 runs scored.
103 driven in.
32 dingers.
.394 on-base percentage.
.561 slugging percentage.
By any reasonable measure, those numbers add up to a hell of an All-Star level season. Guys have a year like that in The Show, they dine out on it for the rest of their lives.
Those particular numbers also happen to represent the LOWEST single-season totals in each of those categories over the nine-year career to date of the remarkable Albert Pujols.
As a kid, I lived in Cooperstown, NY, for two years, and have an overwhelming respect for the Baseball Hall of Fame. As a certifiable baseball nut, I am loath to place a player in Cooperstown prematurely. In fact, my default answer when asked by my sons if so-and-so will make it to the Hall is, "Ask me again in five years."
One of the many purities of this grandest of games is how the numbers manifest themselves over time. Time is the great equalizer in baseball; at 24 years of age, Dwight Gooden was well on his way to establishing himself as one of the great righthanded pitchers in modern history; no less an eminence than Mike Lupica wrote a 1986 column in the NY Daily News entitled "The day the Doc won 300". Cautionary tales abound in baseball. Celebrity, blown-out arms, and life in general can make you yesterday's news in a hurry. For every Greg Maddux, there are a hundred Dwight Goodens, Don Gulletts, and Mark Fidrychs.
That said, carve this guy's plaque right the hell now.
He is not yet thirty years old, and keeps himself in inhuman shape. He does not drink, smoke, cavort, or do anything outside of praising his God, supporting his family, giving of himself and his resources to charity, and working every day on being the "baddest man on the planet swinging a bat for a living" (Joe Posnanski wrote that quote, I do believe). If he is alone on an elevator, and a woman gets on alone, he will get off, to protect himself from the foolhardiness that passes for celebrity these days.
There are those who will claim that he has used some sort of performance-enhancers; if you Google "Pujols & steroids", you'll get a gazillion hits. In response to that, he has, publicly and otherwise, offered to be tested by anyone, at any time. Until such time as a single one of those tests comes up with ANYTHING, he's clean in my book, and my money is on Albert.
That he is baseball's finest player is almost beyond dispute at this time. Really, only Joe Mauer of the Twins, the newly-minted AL MVP, is his recent equal in terms of all-around brilliance. The question becomes where do we start to look at this guy, historically? It can be fairly easily argued that Albert Pujols has had the best first nine years of ANY BALLPLAYER IN HISTORY. In fact, no less a statistical wizard than Bill James has posed that very argument (in an SI article from July of this year, written with the aforementioned Mr. Posnanski).
Think about that for a moment.
Albert Pujols led all National League players in the Triple Crown categories (BA, HR, RBI, OBP, OPS, yada, yada, yada) for the first decade of the twenty-first century. He did so despite having spent the entire 2000 season in the minor leagues. Thus, his nine seasons this decade were better than anyone else's ten.
Unless there is an upset of monumental proportions, he will win his third NL MVP award in a few hours, putting him some in extremely elite company (He did, and by unanimous vote). Willie Mays didn't do it; neither did Henry Aaron, and those are two guys on baseball's Mount Rushmore.
If he stays healthy (an admittedly significant "if"), judging by past performance, here's what you're looking at for career-to-date numbers 5 seasons from now: .330 BA, 1700+ RBI, 560+ HR. Stretch that out ten years, and even factoring in some decline with age, you're still looking at 22-2300 RBI, 700 dingers, 3500 hits and .325+.
He will not be forty years old.
I will argue here and now that we are looking at the greatest right-handed hitter since Henry Aaron, and maybe since anybody. His consistency, nine years into his career, is just ridiculous. Please see the top of this post for what passes as "off-year" numbers for this fellow.
Oh, by the way, he is also rated as the best defensive first baseman in the National League, and second only to the sterling Mark Texieira in all of baseball. He has won the coveted Roberto Clemente award for his charitable works, and damned near did it two years' running. He has publicly (and repeatedly) said he hates talking about himself, and boy, if you want to make him mad, have the temerity to call him a home run hitter. His public persona is that of a profoundly modest man, whose absurd level of excellence has dragged him kicking and screaming into the spotlight.
I do not know this man personally, as I have never had the privilege of his acquaintance. I do admire the hell out of his accomplishments, both on and off the field.
Please take the time to enjoy this; his type of excellence comes along once in a generation, if that.
Maybe "Deus Ex Machina" should be re-translated, "To God, from The Machine".
Until next time,
Exclesior!
Friday, November 20, 2009
On the VO Community
Just a few words today, centering on the rather unique community of folks that make up this industry, from a guy who's been involved just a year or so now. While it is unquestionably a competitive environment, with many, many voice actors competing for jobs, I am struck the willingness of these same competitors to share willingly their experience and advice to those of us new to this gig.
I'll give you two specific, and recent examples that I know of, firsthand. On the Voices.com site (full disclosure: I am a member, and use it to audition for jobs; well worth doing if you're not doing so already), there are numerous blogs on the industry; Voices.com is the preeminent VO site in this business. One of those blogs is known as "Master VO", and focuses on the technical aspects of the business; home recording equipment, and the like. I was recently considering the purchase of a new microphone, and had narrowed it down to 2 final candidates. I posed the question to the folks who run Voices.com for their opinion, and they were kind enough to refer me to Master VO himself, Dan Lenard. Mr. Lenard, who knew me not at all, was kind enough to take his valuable time (he's a pretty heavy hitter in this gig) and give a rank newbie some very sound advice that has greatly improved the quality of my auditions. He has my deep thanks.
Second is my good friend, Chris Shaw. Folksinger, teller of tall tales, recording artist, Kennedy Center "National Treasure" and all-around good guy, Chris has repeatedly supported my efforts in this arena with his advice, and his ability to introduce yours truly around to many of his friends in the recording industry. Just this morning, we started planning a trip to some local and regional studios he knows; with luck, we'll pull that off in the next couple of weeks.
The point of all of this? I am struck by the competitive aspect of this work, while at the same time, the absolute willingness of many of those competitors to help each other out. I think I'm going to like this.
Next time out, some baseball. MVP awards are due next week, and if it ain't Pujols & Mauer, I've completely lost my touch. Until then,
Excelsior!
I'll give you two specific, and recent examples that I know of, firsthand. On the Voices.com site (full disclosure: I am a member, and use it to audition for jobs; well worth doing if you're not doing so already), there are numerous blogs on the industry; Voices.com is the preeminent VO site in this business. One of those blogs is known as "Master VO", and focuses on the technical aspects of the business; home recording equipment, and the like. I was recently considering the purchase of a new microphone, and had narrowed it down to 2 final candidates. I posed the question to the folks who run Voices.com for their opinion, and they were kind enough to refer me to Master VO himself, Dan Lenard. Mr. Lenard, who knew me not at all, was kind enough to take his valuable time (he's a pretty heavy hitter in this gig) and give a rank newbie some very sound advice that has greatly improved the quality of my auditions. He has my deep thanks.
Second is my good friend, Chris Shaw. Folksinger, teller of tall tales, recording artist, Kennedy Center "National Treasure" and all-around good guy, Chris has repeatedly supported my efforts in this arena with his advice, and his ability to introduce yours truly around to many of his friends in the recording industry. Just this morning, we started planning a trip to some local and regional studios he knows; with luck, we'll pull that off in the next couple of weeks.
The point of all of this? I am struck by the competitive aspect of this work, while at the same time, the absolute willingness of many of those competitors to help each other out. I think I'm going to like this.
Next time out, some baseball. MVP awards are due next week, and if it ain't Pujols & Mauer, I've completely lost my touch. Until then,
Excelsior!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
On Voice Acting
Why Voice Acting? For me, it goes back years; I've always done public speaking gigs, and had been told on a number of occasions that I had a good voice. This had been sitting in the back of my head for quite a while, until Thanksgiving '08, when I decided I would take a run at it "after the holidays".
Sure enough, Jan 5, '09,I run across an article in the local paper about an Adult Ed course the very next week covering Voice Acting. The sheer Kismet of it was just too powerful to ignore, and so I went.
Long story short? Following the class, I signed up with the folks at Creative Voice Development Group in Schenectady, NY, and went through their "VoiceCoaches.com" training. It combines hours of one-on-one time in the studio with extensive web class content, and these folks are generally considered one of the best trainers in the industry. I heartily recommend them.
Why Voice Acting? For one thing, it's fun. Further, and while I'm certainly not there yet, it can be a nice way to make some extra money, but it is certainly hard work to get your name and talents know in the marketplace. Hence this blog, among other things.
Excelsior!
Sure enough, Jan 5, '09,I run across an article in the local paper about an Adult Ed course the very next week covering Voice Acting. The sheer Kismet of it was just too powerful to ignore, and so I went.
Long story short? Following the class, I signed up with the folks at Creative Voice Development Group in Schenectady, NY, and went through their "VoiceCoaches.com" training. It combines hours of one-on-one time in the studio with extensive web class content, and these folks are generally considered one of the best trainers in the industry. I heartily recommend them.
Why Voice Acting? For one thing, it's fun. Further, and while I'm certainly not there yet, it can be a nice way to make some extra money, but it is certainly hard work to get your name and talents know in the marketplace. Hence this blog, among other things.
Excelsior!
On joining the Blogosphere
Well, here we go. I have, on the cusp of my fiftieth birthday, finally entered the twenty-first century, and started my own blog.
Why now? There are a couple of good reasons, not the least of which is the (hopefully) successful promotion of my fledgling voice acting business, as well as to take advantage of the awesome power of the Web to lend my voice to issues I feel strongly about.
We'll try to keep it clean, topical, and with luck, intelligent.
Excelsior!
Why now? There are a couple of good reasons, not the least of which is the (hopefully) successful promotion of my fledgling voice acting business, as well as to take advantage of the awesome power of the Web to lend my voice to issues I feel strongly about.
We'll try to keep it clean, topical, and with luck, intelligent.
Excelsior!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)