The Best of Songsmith

For those of you who don't know, Microsoft has recently released their own music production software, called Songsmith, in the hopes of competing with Apple's GarageBand. The thing is, Songsmith is really absolutely nothing like GarageBand. While GarageBand is your basic, standard music production software - very limited, but user-friendly and versatile enough for most people's purposes - Songsmith is way, way more limited than GarageBand and way, way less versatile. In fact, it really only does one thing. Granted, that one thing is something that GarageBand can't do. On GarageBand, I've recorded live performances, made mash-ups, constructed samples, remixed pop songs, and manipulated vocal tracks, but I haven't been able to sing into it and get it to automatically create a chord progression for me. That's exactly what Songsmith does. If you sing a melody into it, it automatically harmonizes it with software instruments for you. 

Now, you may be thinking to yourself, "Whoa! This software is really cool. I can't imagine anything wrong with it!" Well, you're wrong. As with all things that sound too good to be true, there's a catch. And the catch for Microsoft Songsmith is that all the backing tracks it generates are sickeningly cheesy. Like, something a little kid would want to listen to. Like, one of the demos from that $20 keyboard you had when you were 8 years old. Like, something that a pro wrestler who was trying to start a musical career recorded in the 1980s (or in some cases, the 1990s). Need proof? Just watch this ad for Songsmith. It might not make you want to buy the program, but it definitely will make you want to buy glow-in-the-dark towels.

Microsoft Songsmith Commercial

(Don't ask me why they're using a mac in the commercial. I was mislead into thinking this software was available for macs, but my hopes of creating horrible backing tracks to pop songs were crushed). 

As you can tell, this software is intended for people who have absolutely no experience with music performance, production, theory, or even listening. But pop culture junkies with too much time on their hands always recognize a good opportunity when they see one (just look at this blog for proof of that). A bunch of people have created videos on youtube where they put an acapella vocal track for a famous pop song into Songsmith and see what it generates for a backing track. The results are stunning, and here I present you with the cream of the crop:

1. Nirvana - In Bloom

Apparently, the music video for "In Bloom," the second song from Nirvana's famous album Nevermind, parodied old music shows from the 50s, and the backing track that Songsmith generated for "In Bloom" matches the 50s aesthetic perfectly. But it also does so much more. First of all, it had a hard time syncing the vocals to the backing track, so at times the vocals don't match the rhythm at all. Secondly, it shows you what a truly terrible singer Kurt Cobain was (Nirvana fans, don't pretend like you don't know it's true). With the wall of drums and distorted guitar stripped away, Kurt Cobain's voice is loud, clear, and painful.

2. Survivor - Eye Of The Tiger

This is one of the only instances in which the Songsmith backing track actually makes the vocals sound different. Songsmith generated a laid back, melancholy, Eagles-style backing track for "Eye of the Tiger," and it gives the lyrics entirely new meaning. When the lead singer declares, "Did my time, took my chances," and "Just a man and his will to survive," it sounds as if he's sitting somewhere, reminiscing about the days when he could have been great. Hmm... that sounds an awful lot like what the lead singer of Survivor is probably doing right now. Maybe Songsmith has the power to reveal hidden truths about songs... Let's watch another video to find out.

3. Oasis - Wonderwall

I take it back. Apparently, when Songsmith heard the angsty ballad "Wonderwall," it assumed that the vocals were meant to be played over happy hardcore. But is that really a bad thing? I'll just say that while I'm not a huge fan of Oasis, or angsty bands in general, if this version of "Wonderwall" came on at a rave, or while I was playing DDR, I'd probably dance to it.

If you liked that one, be sure to check out this ravealicious rendition of "Tom Sawyer" by Rush.

4. Ozzy Osbourne - Crazy Train

All aboard the polka train!!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!

Ever wonder what "Crazy Train" would sound like as a polka? Well now you can find out. Need I say more?

For a similar delight, listen to this bluegrass rendition of "White Wedding" by Billy Idol.

5. Marvin Gaye - I Heard It Through The Grapevine

Apparently, at one point Marvin Gaye was backed by a bunch of teenagers from the 90s.

6. The Police - Roxanne

Songsmith wisely chose to give "Roxanne" a Caribbean feel. Why wisely? Well, The Police became famous for shamelessly appropriating reggae, so calypso is just the next logical step, right?

Actually, I think that Songsmith butchered "Roxanne" more than any other one on here. Unlike all the other ones that I've mentioned (except for "Heard it Through the Grapevine"), "Roxanne" was a pretty good song to begin with, but that's only because Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland are both incredible musicians. When Songsmith took them away, they left us with the wannabe-Jamaican asshole Sting and what sounds like the house band for a Disney cruise ship.

7. Van Halen - Runnin' With The Devil

This is by far the best one on the list. Songsmith obviously hated David Lee Roth (rightly so), so they chose to have a lounge band back him. This rendition sounds like... well... David Lee Roth being backed by a lounge band. I really can't think of a funnier way to describe it. Just think of the loudest, most testosterone-filled lead singer in the entire genre of hair-metal being backed by a swingin' lounge band, and you have the idea. Or better yet, just watch the video. I promise you that by 0:45, you'll be on the floor with laughter.

So there you have it. I urge everyone who has Windows and loves destroying pop songs to immediately download the trial version of Songsmith and a bunch of acapella tracks and immediately post your creations to youtube.

10 Lesser-known Music Players for Windows and Linux (And a Few For Mac)

iTunes, Windows Media Player, Winamp, maybe RealPlayer. Other than that, you don't see the average music listener using much else to manage and listen to their music. But what if you're no average music listener? What if your needs extend beyond simple playback features? What if you want multiple libraries? What if you're frustrated with the bloat and useless features of these players? Well there's a ton of things out there for you.

Maybe it's because I'm restless, maybe it's because I'm a geek, but I tend to change my main audio player at least twice a month. I dunno, I think the way we listen to music effects how we feel when we listen to it. For example, the way I react to music is much different when I'm listening to headphones versus a speaker system. The music effects me differently when I'm on a bus versus by myself in my room (and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this, right?).

The difference is (obviously) more subtle when doing something as simple as switching an audio player, but it's still there. The way I navigate and control my music influences my choices and changes the listening experience. Audiophiles will also tell you that different music players actually sound different from each other, as players often use different techniques to process, EQ, and produce sound. I, despite my decent ear, couldn't tell you the sound differences between Winamp and iTunes, but keep an ear out.

So, through my geekery and various audio explorations, I've come across quite a few music players that deserve more credit than they get. Most are for Windows and Linux, a few are cross-platform. Some are more well-known than others, and they all vary in features. All are free to download and use, and most are open source. So without further ado, in no particular order, here's 10 of 'em. Oh, and click on all of the thumbnails to see bigger versions, but you knew that.


1. Amarok (Linux, Windows(beta), Mac(beta))

Amarok is probably the most popular player on this list. It is (arguably) probably the most popular audio player for linux. It's got somewhat of a cult following, as fans of the player tend to get a little crazy about it, and for good reason. Amarok is incredibly full-featured, while still offering the user freedom to manage their music in any way they see fit. Whereas iTunes says, "Here's how I'm going to manage your music." Amarok says, "It's your music, how do you want me to manage it?" Amarok can create a library with your structure of choice, index what you have, browse and play music through a built-in file browser, music can be dragged-and-dropped into the playlist, there's crossfade, EQ, effects, analyzers, visualizers, plug-ins, lyrics fetchers, even an online music store, magnatune. Probably my favorite feature is the ability to fetch wikipedia information about the artist and display it in the side panel. I switch audio players a lot, but I was hooked on Amarok for a good 8 months or so, which says a lot. The screenshot is of Amarok 1.4.4, but version 2.0 recently came out for linux and a beta version 2 is out for windows and Mac. Amarok 2 sports a cleaner, easier interface and a ton of new features that I just couldn't cover in one article.


2. Songbird (Windows, Mac, Linux)

Songbird is often referred to as an iTunes clone (as it manages music and indexes data in much the same way, plus it looks kinda similar), but it is so much more than that. It's built on gecko, the same engine they use to make Firefox, so in addition to a music player, it's also a full-fledged web browser offering a ton of popular extensions and skins. It's got a ton of seamless music-web-integration features that make it an awesome tool for discovering new artists, scrobbling, playing web files, and reading media blogs. It's also got your set of EQ features, visualizers and playlist capabilities. You can even save bookmarks, blogs, pages, video, and your own music all to the same playlist. And, of course, it'll manage your iPod without blinking. A really great player that many are calling an "iTunes killer."


3. Exaile (Linux)

Exaile aims to be very similar to Amarok, though unlike Amarok, which is built for the KDE window manager, Exaile is built for seamless GNOME integration. In addition to having (almost) everything that Amarok has to offer, Exaile brings a ton of its own cool features to table. The interface is slightly different, and it includes a built-in shoutcast directory browser, tabbed playlists (allowing for multiple open playlists), iPod integration and scrobbling, and Guitar tab fetching. If you're a GNOME die-hard, or just want what feels like a cleaner, tweaked version of Amarok, then check it out.


4. VLC Media Player (Windows, Mac, Linux)

VLC is like the swiss army knife of media players, you can throw pretty much any media file at it, on a computer without any codecs installed, and it'll play without any problems. It's actually fairly well known and pretty popular in terms of video players, but there was a subtle feature addition in the recent 0.9 release: the inclusion of a simple media library, album art fetching, and updated playlist features. This makes VLC now a pretty darn good audio player. The EQ is fast and fantastic, the playlist is simple and effective, and while it's management features are lacking, if non-existent, for the many of us who have our own folder structure and prefer dragging and dropping 'a la Winamp, VLC is a really great choice. One of its greatest features is its stability. Especially for audio files, VLC will practically never crash. It can also drive more volume than any other player I've used, so if you've got soft speakers, using VLC will definitely allow you to get some more sound out of them (and potentially blow them, so be careful). It's got a fairly lucrative plug-in community, and it's audio features are extremely robust. It'll never get in your face, it's not flashy, but what it lacks in library management and looks, it more than makes up for in no-nonsense power and advanced audio features.

5. Freeamp/Zinf (Windows)

Freeamp (now called Zinf due to copyright issues) hearkens back to older versions of Winamp, and hit its popularity peak around the same time as Winamps' as an open source alternative to the popular player. Unlike Winamp, however, Freeamp updates very conservatively and acts very much like Winamp 1 or 2. So if you're disappointed as to the way Winamp's gone and want something simpler, Freeamp is a good choice. It's got the same simple library features of older Winamp versions and even some downloading features. Though the main focus of this player is no-nonsense music playback, the same philosophy that made Winamp so popular back in the day.


6. Audacious (Linux, Mac (third-party port))

Audacious is fantastic. If Freeamp is like older Winamp, then Audacious is similar to new Winamp --at least on the outside. It's got a strikingly similar interface and for basic playback it works in much the same way offering simple drag-and-drop smart playlist creation. Its features differ greatly, however. It's got a really advanced audio playback engine (It was originally a fork of BMP) which is considerably more powerful than GStreamer and offers a ton of features. It's got the ability to use different output systems for playback, voice removal, transcoding, fast EQ, alarm, gamepad support, streaming, scrobbling, LADSPA support, and a pretty strong skinning and plugin community. It's also got wonderful metadata editing features. A lot of it's feature focus is on offering things that no other player has, and that's what has made it probably the second most popular player on linux. I always find my way to audacious when I'm looking for a simple and powerful player with that one niche feature no one else has.


7. Floola (Linux, Mac, Windows)

Floola is the iPod-lover's best friend, offering a complete and total replacement for iTunes. Though it doesn't support iPod touch or iPhone, the rest of us get a billion iPod centric features that truly liberate you from the vice of iTunes. Floola allows you to add and extract songs to and from the ipod from any computer, anywhere. It can automatically convert videos and movies to the right format as well as music, and it's got easy and powerful automatic podcast managment and sorting. It can manage, import, and export playlists, fetch album art and lyrics, even on older iPods. It can manage notes, synchronize to google calendar, add photos effortlessly, even automatically add web videos to the iPod by simply copying the url of the video. It can fix a broken iPod and recover files, search for duplicates, use system notifications, and even export your songs to HTML. Oh, did I mention it plays and manages music? Probably my favorite feature is the fact that it's just a standalone app/exe/executable, so you can put it directly on your iPod (or anywhere, really) and use it on any computer, with any Operating System. Of course, it's not all that useful if you don't have an iPod (or a motorola phone that supports iTunes), but for iPod owners, this is not just a great management and playback app, it's a must-have tool.


8. 1by1 (Windows, Linux (with WINE))

1by1 is the ultimate in minimalist music management. In fact, it doesn't even manage music. Dubbed, "the directory player" by it's creator, 1by1 has a simple, tree-based, two panel file browser. double clicking a music file will play it and all tracks in the folder. For those who like to manually manage their music with a folder structure of their own, 1by1 is the perfect counterpart. It also works well with those who use iTunes since iTunes automatically sorts your music by artist in a fairly neat folder structure. Like Floola, it's portable and can be put on a flash drive and carried anywhere. What's more it's tiny --just 100kb! It still has your basic features like gapless playback, crossfading, and audio enhancement, though it lacks an EQ. It's got almost no resource usage, and can read filenames directly or pull and display track metadata. it can rename files while playing them, and edit and delete directories while in use. It supports bookmarks and playlists (though you'll never use that), and can remember past places. All in all it's for the person who just wants to play what's in a folder. Simple, no-bullshit music playback.


9. Minirok (linux)

Minirok is one of my favorite players. Think of it as the bastard child of Amarok and 1by1. It's written in Python and is based largely on Amarok code, though almost everything in Amarok has been stripped out in favor of the same minimalist 1by1 playback philosophy. In the left panel is a tree-style file browser, and the right panel is an Amarok-style playlist that can be edited, cleared, and switched around. One of Miniroks' unique features is the ability to generate metadata from a filename. It can perform searches from the tree view and the playlist, and music can only be populated from drag-and-drop. Playback works and feels similar to Amarok, though most advanced audio options like EQ have been taken out. It's got global key bindings and custom shortcuts to be totally manageable from the keyboard or system tray, and it can also scrobble. Other than that, it's really just meant to play music. If you find yourself using Amarok or Exaile, but not using the library, and instead using the "Files" tab, you'll probably find Minirok to be a much cleaner, nicer app.


10. Aqualung (linux, Windows)

Aqualung is very much its own thing. It's got a few similarities to other programs, but on the whole it's unique. The interface is customizable, offering inline player and playlist or separation of the two. it's got a music library and good CD importing features. It's got all your advanced EQ effects, and it has tabbed, customizable playlists as well as keyboard shortcuts, streaming radio, podcast support, it supports a wide range of formats, and, like Audacious, can output to multiple drivers. It supports LADSPA by default and can be controlled completely by the command line. The interface feels very unique, with nothing really standing out as similar to another player, and the tabbed playlists are done very well. It seems like it's meant to be customized by the user, there's a bunch of different skins and making your own is pretty easy. The different windows can be put together into one big player or made as small and unobtrusive as you like. This player really follows none of the rules and is a good choice if you're looking for something different --from everything.


Well, there you have it. 10 lesser-known music players. If you're a geek you probably already know many of these, but there's hundreds more of them out there, and I encourage you to go hunting for something you like. After all, why shouldn't your music player be as unique as your music?

New Update

I just found out that Toby Maguire is going to be in a movie of Robotech. WHY IS THIS ALL HAPPENING RIGHT NOW?

Inauguration Day

Wrote a little techno dance tune for Obama's inauguration. Hope you like it.

Why, Leo, Why?

It started out with just one movie. Then two, then three, now four, and probably more very soon, in what one of my professors described as "a frickin epidemic." All over the country, perfectly good (well, that might be a bit of a stretch) anime shows and movies are being turned into live- action movies, which on its own creates the potential for true mediocrity. But what makes it even worse is that all of them star white casts. 

The first news I heard of this had to do with the upcoming movie of "Avatar: The Last Airbender," which isn't really an anime but is heavily influenced by the style and has to do with Asian culture. This wasn't actually the first movie to be based on an anime and star white people: Speed Racer did it over the summer. But this was the first time that I thought about how problematic it was to have a white person star in a movie based on a cartoon that has Asian characters in it, and soon I started noticing a trend. A few weeks later, my friend told me "Dude, they're making a movie of Dragonball and it's going to have Chow Yun Fat in it." My immediate response was "Sweet! That's so awesome that he's going to play Goku!", but then my friend told me "No, he's playing someone else, the teenager from War of the Worlds is going to play Goku," to which I probably said "What the fuck?" But it didn't stop there: soon I was reading in Giant Robot magazine about how Leonardo DiCaprio was going to produce a live-action movie of Akira. My initial response was "Cool, he's really talented, I bet he'll find some good Japanese actors for it. I mean, it IS set in Tokyo." But then I read about how it was basically going to be a vanity piece for him which he, along with Joseph Gordon Levitt, another great actor, but one who doesn't really fit the character description, is going to star in. The day after I learned about this and spent a good deal of time wondering why this bizarre trend was occurring, my friend told me that Keanu Reeves was going to star in the movie of Cowboy Bebop. When I heard this, it was like a pain in my heart. Cowboy Bebop was one of my favorite anime shows back in the day, and I wish it was being shown more respect.

What, you may ask, is so problematic about this? Well, the answer is pretty straightforward. Anime shows and movies are usually made in Japan by Japanese people, and therefore they are usually about Japanese people as well. People always say that anime characters look white, but this is really just a matter of perception. In America, whiteness is viewed as standard (I could go into why this in itself is problematic, but I'll save that for another time), so generic looking characters are assumed to be white, and non-white characters are usually given distinctive physical features. In Japan, as would be expected, being Asian is viewed as standard, so generic looking characters are assumed to be Asian. Because of this, when white people see a generic looking character in anime they assume that they are white. This is of course a broad generalization, but it has been written about before and makes a lot of sense.

Anyway, it logically follows that if an anime is about Japanese people, and a live action version of it is going to be made, then Japanese people should be cast for it. Well, apparently other people don't think so because of this issue of perception. When white Americans make live action versions of anime shows or movies, they see "standard" characters, assume that these characters are white, and then cast white people for the roles. Again, the fact that white people are all of a sudden all jumping on board to make (presumably) Americanized versions of Japanese movies and shows could in itself be viewed as problematic, but it wouldn't be viewed in this way nearly as much if Japanese people, or at least Asian people, were cast in the leading roles. The reason why this whole situation is fucked up is because it shows how easy it is for white actors to get movie roles compared to Asian actors (and non-white actors in general). Even in movies that are based on Japanese media, set in Japan, and about Japanese people, white people are the stars. This is just beyond ludicrous. I mean, now that Leonardo DiCaprio is going to star in Akira, what's next? Is Tom Cruise going to star in a samurai movie? Is a heavily made-up white guy going to play an Asian Bond villain? Is Ben Kingsley going to play Gandhi in a biopic? Come on, let's not be ridiculous.

Anyway, it's pretty easy to see that the film industry is prejudiced to a startling degree in favor of white people. I wouldn't say this if I was only talking about one movie (even though it's true), but this is more: it's an entire trend in film that's in full force right now. When white people play Asian characters all the time but the reverse is not true nearly as often (to my knowledge, at least), you know that there's absurd amounts of bias within the industry. But even if you don't care about race and you think anyone should be able to play anyone (which even if you think is good is not what the industry is actually like), you have to admit that this whitewashing of Asian media is leading to shittier movies. For one thing, they're just not plausible if you stop to think about them. Avatar and Dragonball are definitely bad in this regard, but Akira is by far the worst. I don't know about you, but I don't think there are very many people with blond hair and blue eyes named Tetsuo who live in Tokyo.

Now, the Cowboy Bebop movie could be considered an exception to this implausibility. For one thing, Keanu Reeves is half Asian. For another thing, the show takes place in outer space, not Japan, and Reeves's character, whose name is the very American/European sounding Spike Spiegle, was born on Mars, which could mean anything in terms of his race. But even with the plausibility significantly increased, Keanu Reeves is a terrible actor. It's bad enough that he just destroyed one of my favorite 50s sci-fi movies, but now he has to ruin one of my favorite Anime shows. In the original show, Spike was an incredibly compelling character, but Keanu Reeves has never been compelling in his life (well, except for when he played Ted Theodore Logan). The reason why I say that Cowboy Bebop deserves more respect is not because of any issues of representation; I simply think it should star someone who is talented enough to play Spike.

This isn't the only case where a sub-par (well, in this case half) white actor has beaten (presumably) talented Asian actors for a role. Jim Sturgess, the British guy from Across the Universe, was supposedly chosen to play an Asian person in the movie 21 because "producers simply sought the best actor for the job, regardless of race. Ultimately, this meant passing over many Asian American talents in favor of London born Jim Sturgess, who required a dialect coach to speak with an American accent." Seriously? A white British guy who needed a dialect coach to even sound like the character was chosen to play an Asian American character, even though tons of people who both looked and sounded like the character auditioned for the role? Even if Sturgess was the best actor overall who auditioned (which I doubt was the case), was he really "the best actor for the job" if he didn't fit the character description at all and required special treatment in order to play the part? I don't buy it, and if the producers of the Dragonball or Cowboy Bebop movies tried to use this argument on me I wouldn't buy it either. Keanu Reeves? That whiny dude from War of the Worlds (no, not Tom Cruise, the other one)? They were really the best actors you could find? I doubt it. The only case where I might buy this argument is with Akira. I think that Leonardo DiCaprio and Joseph Gordon Levitt are both insanely talented actors, and that in many cases they would be better than anyone else auditioning for a part. But in the case of Akira, we run into the issues of representation and plausibility again. I'm sorry, but it's just wrong to have DiCaprio and Levitt be the stars of a movie set in Tokyo, unless it's a remake of Lost in Translation or something (which I probably wouldn't want to watch anyway). Maybe they'll set the movie in a different city to make it more believable, but if that were the case then so much would be lost. The movie would be taken completely out of context and lose lots of meaning, which happens a lot when cultural artifacts are appropriated. 

And again, the real problem in this case that arises from cultural appropriation is that it is obviously so much easier for white actors to get movie parts than Asian actors. If Leonardo DiCaprio and Joseph Gordon Levitt were chosen over Asian actors to play characters whose race was not already specified then that wouldn't really be a problem; I would totally believe that they were the best actors for the job and I would probably be excited for the movie and want to go see it (I can't say the same thing for Keanu though). But I'm not excited for the remake of Akira, even though I love the original movie and both actors who will star in it. I think it's absurd and unfair that DiCaprio and Levitt have been cast for the movie, which will be much less authentic and much more removed from the original as a result.

We Can't Sing Without A Band

Back in 1990, that magical year in between the ridiculous 80s and the not-quite-as-ridiculous-but-still-pretty-ridiculous 90s, one of the most recognizable pop culture icons was Super Mario, everyone's favorite Italian stereotype, who became Nintendo's most beloved figure and one of the most prominent faces of video games as a whole. If old video game commercials are a reliable source of information, then Nintendo was the shit back in the 80s, and Mario was a household name, at least among nerds and young people (especially young nerds). Well, if history has taught us anything, it's that whenever a figure becomes popular enough, a cartoon will be made of that figure, usually with catastrophic results that could ruin the image of said figure if it weren't for the fact that no one actually likes the cartoon itself (just look at The Beatles for another example of this). Mario was certainly no exception to this trend: apparently six different cartoon shows were made based on Mario, and while I'm sure all of them were utterly terrible and worthy of lengthy analysis/criticism, the one that I wish to focus on is the poorly named Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3, obviously a series of 30 minute long advertisements for the 3rd installment of the series. And I specifically want to focus on one particular episode that could only have been made in 1990, or maybe a few years earlier:

Watch this video! (Sorry for not embedding it).

No, you're not tripping, this is an actual episode of the Mario cartoon in which he rescues Milli Vanilli from King Koopa (unfortunately, he was not able to rescue them from the shame they faced after it was found out that they had been lip-synching all of their music). This is only the first part of the episode, but you really need to watch the entire thing. There are just so many bizarre "what the fuck" moments, from the ridiculous stereotyping of King Koopa's bratty daughter (although her behavior is casually explained at around 5:17 in part 2 as being the result of horrible child abuse), to Milli Vanilli's forced laughter that is even less convincing than the infamous FFX "laughing scene," to the assumption that accountants are not "real people" compared to a duo of singers who don't actually sing, to the fact that said fake singers are disgusted by the prospect of being turned into The Beatles (maybe because they don't want to be in another shitty cartoon?), to all of the priceless lines spoken by the bratty daughter ("I really dig your dreadlocks"), Princess Peach ("If we don't turn those accountants back into Milli Vanilli, I'll never hear my favorite music again" - don't worry princess, even if you don't save them, you'll never hear them again a year from now), Toad (the forced and unsettling "It's time to rock and roll!"), and of course the "artists" themselves, with the eerily prophetic "We can't sing for you without a band." 

I find it remarkable how prophetic that line is, since this cartoon was very likely the last time that Milli Vanilli were ever held in such high regard. According to the always reliable wikipedia, two weeks after it was first aired, the Milli Vanilli producer revealed that the two frontmen had lip-synched all of their songs and that none of the voices on the recordings were theirs. The version of the cartoon that exists on youtube is what they aired for reruns, after it was found out that Milli Vanilli was a fraudulent act. This is why some aspects of the episode are so weird (although much of its strangeness still can't be explained). For one thing, this explains why during the Milli Vanilli musical numbers instrumental music is played while the singers move their mouths without making any sound (which is what they actually did during concerts). The original episode contained the Milli Vanilli songs "Blame it on the Rain" and "Girl You Know It's True," but these were edited out after the truth about Milli Vanilli was revealed. This is also why when King Koopa says "more like blame it on King Koopa," we don't really know what he's talking about; he originally said "Blame it on the rain? More like blame it on King Koopa," but the first part was edited out since it wouldn't have actually referenced anything in the revised version. The best change that was made was the deletion of Luigi's closing line: "Maybe if we keep our band, we'll be that popular!" This line was probably what cursed the series, and its prediction couldn't be more accurate: The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 became equally as popular as Milli Vanilli, fading into obscurity shortly after the airing of this episode.

What's so fascinating about the context of this episode though is that it shows how truly fragile the pop industry is. Milli Vanilli are the poster children for "15 minutes of fame," and they are far from the only pop group who has received constant ridicule two weeks after receiving tributes on television. As bad as this episode is, Milli Vanilli were on top of the world when it was made (at least in the show), and just two weeks later they were being destroyed on TV, the same medium on which they had so recently been an object of desire. Popular culture as we are familiar with it allowed these two untalented people to rise to such great success that they were kidnapped by King Koopa and saved by the Mario Bros., only to be put in the dungeon two weeks later. The popular culture that we consume is volatile, and this episode couldn't be better proof of that.

But what it reveals even more is how exploitative this industry can be, to its consumers as well as its producers. For the consumers, this show was designed solely as a way to fuck with us and get our money. The entire series was just a giant plug for Super Mario Bros 3 (not even the whole series, a specific fucking game), and to top it all off an entire episode had to be converted in to a giant plug for Milli Vanilli, one of the most corporate groups of the 1980s. That's probably one reason why the show was so terrible; advertisements are boring, so therefore an entire series designed to sell products is going to be painful. Every quality TV show that I can think of has stayed away from excessive product placement, which, to quote Twin Peaks creator David Lynch, is "bullshit." What's even worse is that this show was meant to be consumed by children, some of the most easily fooled consumers. I remember being a kid and wanting every piece of plastic crap and sugary junk that the TV bombarded me with, and I'm certainly not the only one who's had that experience. Advertisements for certain products target children specifically because they are less discriminating in their taste, have more disposable money, and are more emotionally vulnerable, and because if they are put in the consumer mentality early in life they are more likely to continue with this mentality in their adulthood. Because of this, companies often make deals with producers to have entire shows created around their products. The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 isn't even the best (worst?) example of this. While it was created to support the video game, the opposite was not true. The video game was an independent entity and the main product being sold; it would have existed and sold well without the TV show, which simply rode on the game's coattails. A better example of a TV show created in tandem with a product in order to sell it is Pokemon, a franchise that I grew up with and still have a deep fondness for, and whose business strategy I am simultaneously outraged and intrigued by. When the Pokemon franchise became popular in the late 90s, it was because a TV show, a video game, and a toy series were all released at the same time, supporting each other so that if a 9 year old kid like me got into the video game, for example, he or she would subsequently get into the TV show and the toys. Likewise, the TV show was another half hour long advertisement, but it was much more subliminal, since it was not based directly on the video game, but was created in tandem with it. The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 is obviously an advertisement since it was made after the game was released and is specifically related to it; the Pokemon TV show is less hard to pin down, since it was created as part of a franchise rather than as a way to sell one specific product. I think that Pokemon is an absolutely brilliant franchise, both from an artistic perspective and a business one, but I still have problems with the business aspect of it because of the nature of the TV show that gets kids to buy products. If you want to read more about kids shows that were created to sell products, read this. Even kids shows that weren't explicitly created for this purpose usually have tie-in products that the producers can make money off of. Shows like Sesame Street, to a lesser extent Yo! Gabba Gabba, and to an even lesser extent 90s Nicktoons have shown us that children's television has the potential to be a powerful educational tool if it is used well and removed from corporate interests. But unfortunately, the power of television can also easily be used to manipulate the minds of children, and many executives use this power to make absurd amounts of money when they could be teaching valuable information or messages, or even doing nothing but providing quality entertainment, instead. (If you want to learn more about children's television, I highly recommend watching this episode of Screenwipe.)

If that long-winded tangent hasn't convinced you that popular culture can exploit its consumers, at least consider the fact that it exploits its producers as well. As fun as it is to make fun of Milli Vanilli, there is no doubt that they were exploited by record companies. They were used to sell products, and once their 15 minutes had expired they were fed to those that hungered for scandal. While other pop groups like the New Kids On The Block, the Backstreet Boys, and the Spice Girls did not have falls as dramatic as that of Milli Vanilli, they still only had brief periods in the spotlight, after which they were left to be objects of parody while they remembered their moments of fame. I love popular culture probably more than most people , but let's face it, record and TV companies that produce the music and shows I love fuck with everyone in order to make money. While you've certainly heard self-righteous people like me say that before, consider the above episode of The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 to be proof. I hope you don't have a desire to go listen to Milli Vanilli now, that if you want to play Super Mario Bros 3 it's because its actually a fun game, and that you at least consider some of the more overlooked effects that TV has on children. As for me, this dreadful 10 minutes of television has fucked with me in a different way: now that I know that Milli Vanilli is Princess Peach's favorite band, I'll never be able to look at her the same way again.

Happy New Year Links

Happy new year. I found an interesting article on fizzlechat addressing the stagnation in game genres over the last 10 years. It's also a wonderful short history of the evolution of video games. Perhaps another reason for the surprise success of GOG.com? "Ten Years Without A New Genre"