Texsox

Looking at some on my list that did not make the top 40 7. Will and Grace 9. Just Shoot Me 11. King of the Hill 12. Spin City 17. Welcome Back Kotter 19. Odd Couple

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 29, 2008 -> 10:00 PM) Make sure you get a termite inspection. The house is also made from plastic . . .

Kay Hutchison is an interesting pick. I've had two opportunities to meet with her and one chance to work with her and her staff on a manufacturing issue. I was really impressed with her staff and I believe it reflects back on her.

8 year olds can be manipulated to say almost anything. Which is the sad part. To put someone to death, it would seem one yard stick would be the absolute positive conviction, and these are among the worst witnesses. Too many people have been convicted then proven innocent for me to ever believe the death penalty is a useful tool to keep society safe.

Of course it really depends on her personality . . .

Wow, I'm surprised that M*A*S*H was so low. I also excluded SNL because I focused on :30 sitcoms. But if I reranked the list based on these 40, which may be interesting, I;d have found a place in my top 5, top 10 at the least, but mostly for older episodes.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 12:17 AM) Not always true. A specific example I can bring up is the OC played a Kings of Convenience song, then put it on their soundtrack in record stores, and didn't as little as let the band members of the Kings of Convenience know. They were outraged, but they didn't get compensated. Link? Are you saying that OC could just take any song and make a soundtrack without compensating the artist?

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 06:37 PM) Please. A blow-up doll would be less plastic than that lady. So it would be a slump buster for some of these guys.

Knowing guys, any doubt that she has serious baggage if she wants to be married that bad and isn't? I'm thinking she's got to be bat ass crazy or why hasn't some mid fifty, middle life crisis guy scooped her up?

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 12:34 PM) I guess that's why I'm not calling the shots. I think you have it backwards. The industry has to form the group. Industry groups do not usually form then find someone to represent. I think they are smart in realizing that they are no longer manufacturers, or at the minimum it is a shrinking portion of the industry. They get downloads, legal and illegal, will ultimately make commercial manufacturing as a boutique item. People will download into their devices. How people compensate the artists for their efforts is the issue. Free sharing will virtually stop consumers from actually paying the artists via sales. It is too difficult to police millions of users. So where will artists earn a living? It would seem logical for companies who make money using the artists songs to be paying the artists. So radio stations, would be the logical target. And will radio stations negotiate with thousands of artists or will they negotiate through record companies and/or an organization representing record companies? Seems like the simplest and most logical is an umbrella group that can negotiate a consistent program for a lot of members. What the companies will then be doing is aggressively marketing their artists to the record companies to earn income for them and their artists. I just do not see individual bands remaining independent outlets like iTunes and Amazon negotiating with every kid in a band for distribution. It might not be the RIAA, it may be artists direct, but down the lines, radio stations, like TV shows, Advertisers, movies, etc. will be paying someone for the songs they play. When CSI plays a Who song, they pay. Why shouldn't a radio station? When a movie uses a song, they pay, why not a radio station?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 06:15 AM) Two words Government.Bailout. Any idea how many people they employ? It has to be a dwindling number, which, along with national security, drives many bailouts.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 10:24 PM) There doesn't need to be a Dairy Council to have dairies, and there doesn't need to be a Beef Council to have meat. Record companies would still exist in the absence of their dysfunctional industry group. No, there doesn't need to be. But notice how every industry has an association? What these "dinosaur" executives get, that some people seem not to, is they are no longer a manufacturing industry. The manufacturing of objects (album, tape, cd) will go the way of the buggy whip. What they have are intellectual properties that they will be managing for their artists. The "advertising" that radio is doing is advertising a product that has decreasing sales. As downloads continue to replace objects that need to be manufactured, that advertising decreases in value while the actual song and audience (like web site "eyeballs) is what has value and needs to be the revenue stream. To cling to a manufacturing model would be the dinosaur approach. And I still believe looking around at companies (not individuals) who are making millions off of your products without paying a fee, seems like a logical step that an industry group would take.

It's not necessarily what Jones said, but it shows how we can't have two morons in the same scene. Jones gets a small pass because a bigger moron shows up. And a probably racists comment trumps all.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 08:13 PM) Back in, say, 1995, I'd realize with all my business prowess, that this weird internet thing isn't just a fad and maybe we should get in on it instead of trying to sue people using it. I'd stop producing and peddling garbage for $20 a CD with only one decent track. If they cannot adapt to the times and come up with a modern, workable business model that doesn't involve trying to squeeze every last dime out of every possible user, no matter how much it might actually hurt them in the long run, then they'll go under. They don't have a right to exist. IMO, they don't really have a need to exist anymore, either. So in your view, they should just close up shop and give up. Does that mean the end of manufactured CDs, etc.?

The death penalty can not be reversed once imposed. People make mistakes. Juries are made of people. If we allow killing someone as punishment, then how could we say that any other punishment is cruel and unusual? Killing citizens is not a power I want a government to have.

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 03:55 PM) I did not submit so it will be interesting to see what materializes in the coming days. I do hope to see The Honeymooners, All in the Family, Sanford & Son, Welcome Back Kotter and Three's Company in the mix. Three's Company was not my favorite, but there are elements to it that make it one of the more memorable comedies ever on TV. Another hilarious movie that a lot of people were not sure was a comedy was Shadow of the Vampire with Willem Defoe. All in the Family is very high on my list and Kotter made my top 20. The other shows were on my original list of all comedies I could think of I really liked, which was about 40.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 11:40 AM) Tex, you may be doing the devil's advocate thing as an academic exercise, but if not then you are seriously backing the wrong horse. I finally found a Dave Marsh piece back from 2001 that gives a little more detail on the MO of the RIAA. http://www.counterpunch.org/marshcheat.html He goes into a little of the 1999 "work made for hire" shenanigans in which then Congressional staffer and eventual RIAA exec (coincidence??) Mitch Glazier did some midnight magic on some lagislative copyright legislation and disappeared the ownership rights of thousands of artists. marsh then picks up the thread and describes how RIAA tried to use the smokescreen of post-9/11 Patriot Act foolishness to sneak self-centered "anti-piracy" wording into the legislation. Before that was the 1983-1984 "blank tape tax" attempt, that RIAA tried to sneak through while the rest of Capitol Hill was wrapped up questioning John Denver and Dee Snyder about "porn rock" in the PMRC debacle. Then another failed attempt at a blank tape/recording equipment levy in 1992 that ultimately led to a legal clarification that taping commercial music for private use was perfectly legal. Fast-forward a few years to see the RIAA threatening litigation against OLGA, Tabster, and the other music tab sharing sites because they weren't giving RIAA a cut. Now, honestly think about this for a minute. These sites weren't offfering music downloads, they were publishing web pages with the marginally correct cords and guitar tabs to songs to be shared by musicians. Tex, if you and me were sitting on the porch and I showed you the chords to Louie Louie, that's grassroots music at its best. But, if you and me are separated by 2,00 miles and I decide that I'm going to use the internet as a digital front porch and I post those same chords to Louie Louie, then RIAA can sue my ass? That particular RIAA gaff - going after online chord and tab services, perfectly encapsulates the stupidity of the group. Back then when I was actively performing and doing the bar band thing, I bought sometimes half-dozen CDs a month, specifically to play along with the songs using tabs I found online. I bought probably 100 CD's just to learn songs off of. And the proceeds from all of those sales, administered by RIAA, went to feed the industry. Then all of a sudden, OLGA and the others pull their tabs and shut down their services because RIAA is trying to shake them down? Brilliant. The kicker, of course, is that at the exact same time as RIAA is busting people for teaching each other guitar riffs, the mp3 format came into its own and the dubious download era began and RIAA was asleep at the wheel. The asociation started out as a standards and practices association for cripes' sake. Their original job was to help standardize the technical aspects of vinyl recording. How they morphed into the cumbersome greedy deceitful group they are now I don't even know. The group is stupid, hurts artists at times, makes dumb decisions. I agree. Radio stations are now deriving more benefit from freely playing records then they are giving. A new arrangement would seem fair. Again, Jim. If you were the RIAA, how would you stay in business?

Current stuff always floats to the top, some people will only name shows they have seen. I stuck primarily to :30 situation comedies.

And we could look at that business model also from the radio station. The stations *were* offering a great opportunity for record companies to increase recrod sales and there was fairness in the balance. As long as consumers were actually buying records, the model worked. The stations received the benefits of free programming for decades and the record manufacturing companies received a boost to sales. Now that the benefit they are providing has less value, they will have to adapt and perhaps it will be by paying royalties much like movie theaters, TV shows, advertisers, etc. who use the songs to earn a profit. But those that think the RIAA are idiots, what would you do to stay in business?

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 12:10 AM) Fawlty made my list. I'm surprised it was on only three lists, but I guess there's a lot of teevee out there. It just missed mine. Actually there was a lot more TV than I thought when I started putting together my list. I could have gone to 40 shows easily and still left something off I like. I also kept my list to sit coms, so left off variety, skit comedy shows, Colbert, Dennis Miller, etc.

Alpha, I bring up downloads because it has killed a major revenue stream, record sales. On one end everyone says they have to adapt to a new business model, but when they do adapt and look at additional revenue streams, they are idiots?! Amazon, iTunes, etc. are not going to want to deal with 100,000 different bands, businesses want to pare their supplier bases, not increase them exponentially. It is too expensive to deal with that many suppliers (bands). Therefor, there will always be companies between the artists and the consumers for the vast majority of music. OK, for the sake of discussion, the hat does not offer a clue to how the team will play. Then why can't other TV station film inside an NFL game? After all, it would be promoting exactly what the NFL is selling? How is this different then movie theaters who pay a fee to the movie companies? And if radio stations are helping increase sales so much, why don't they just stop playing those songs until the record companies pay them for the advertising? Why are we not reading about the radio industry demanding advertising money? A radio station product is their programming, in this case, the songs they use for free.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2008 -> 07:29 PM) after being harrassed constantly by the Enviornment Illinois people downtown, I have decided that I want to open up a bar and name it the "Club Baby Seals"

QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 24, 2008 -> 05:37 PM) Four words: "Jay Mariotti Morning Show" Why green?

QUOTE (The Critic @ Jun 24, 2008 -> 04:09 PM) I obviously didn't mean that it's direct advertising like a car dealership ad would be. The radio station uses it as programming content, but the recording industry gets the benefit of "advertising" their product free of charge. Nobody's buying a radio station as a result of hearing a song on it, but someone may (and often do) buy a record as the result of hearing a song on the radio. It just seems wrong that while radio stations make millions of dollars the musicians and the companies that market and manufacture CDs etc, are left out in the cold. Here is another example, I am a t-shirt manufacturer and I start making Radiohead T-shirts and sell them to "advertise the band". People buy my t-shirts and are then encouraged to buy the albums, so it doesn't really hurt the band, it helps them. Of course downloading the songs for free should also be allowed, so we get back to this, are the artists deserving of compensation for their music, or should anyone be allowed to profit from their work? And let's look at another group of dumb as dinosaur executives. If you want to slap a Chicago Bears logo on a hat and sell it to advertise the Bears, and this bringing in more fans, the NFL will sue you in a heart beat. How is that different then the RIAA protecting the intellectual rights of their members? You want the industry to give away free air play and free downloads. Movie theaters pay fees to play movies, why? After all it's advertsing as well. When the movie comes out for home DVD more people will buy it if they have seen it before. Those dumb as dinosaur executives will not allow people to buy the DVD then play it for paying customers. What the executives have to adjust to is downloading and sharing. There is no way for the artists and industry to make any money off that. So who is making money and who can they get it from? People balk at paying .99 to download a song. How would you make money for your artists?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 24, 2008 -> 02:38 PM) If all radio went away tomorrow where would the recording industry go? My first guess would be a 600 mph nose-dive into the ground. And where would many radio stations go if there was no musicians? The markets would support just so many talk shows. They need each other. Imagine if someone could publish a book and anyone could immediately copy it and print their own copies for sale next to the author's version, and call it advertising for the original owner. Has anyone ever said, I want to listen to that station that advertises Classic Rock? How many stations claim to play the most commercial free music? Why can't two or three television stations head to US Cellular and cover a game as a "news story" with live, as it happens, play by play? Artists are getting screwed. I can't believe stations can't cough up a bit for the recording industry.