Shades of Romeo and Juliet

A couple of weeks ago in my Advertising class, we held our own version of the hit CBC show Dragons’ Den.

We, the students, had to develop our own fake products and pitch them to four students in the Advertising major of our program. The winner was a product called Shades.

Shades, from what I can tell, is a line of makeup stencils (eye liner, eye shadow, Etc.). It’s probably obvious now that I’m a guy, and as a result, I know very little about makeup.

My lack of makeup knowledge would present a slight problem, when, this past Thursday, our class was asked to write a short story about Shades in preparation for writing an ad in a future class.

We were told to come up with a historical figure and portray him or her using Shades. So I had two problems to solve: first, find out what Shades actually is and how a makeup stencil works, and second, come up with a historical figure.

I don’t know if I was ever successful at solving the first problem, but below is my attempt at solving the second one. I call it “Shades of Romeo and Juliet.”

***

Romeo and Marcutio stood alone in the corner of the ballroom surveying the female guests. A look of surprise came over Romeo's face as he noticed a devastatingly beautiful lady across the room.

"Who art yon beautiful lady," he said.

"I know not," answered marcutio.

"The makeup painted upon yon lady art perfectly even," he exclaimed.

Unable to contain his curiosity, he wandered over.

"Pardon me, fair lady, I am Romeo. Who art thou?"

"I am Juliet, but why must thou knowist my identity?"

"I must knowist," answered Romeo, "because thou art so ravishing, and thi makeup art exquisite. What givith thou the ability to possess such magnificently even makeup?"

"I possess Shades, which I use to apply my makeup each dawn. Shades art a line of stencils to apply thein eye shadow, eyeliner, and shapest or fillest in thein eyebrows."

"Thou art lovely," said Romeo. “Shalt thou marry me?"

“Yes," answered Juliet, blushing all the while.

Bell and Astral: a Follow-up and a Sigh of Relief

Following up on an earlier post, I was pleased to hear today that the CRTC rejected BCE Inc.’s (Bell’s) proposed takeover of Astral Media, a deal which would have set Bell back $3.4 billion.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, a green light on the Bell-Astral deal would have put the broadcasting industry’s “diversity of voices” in jeopardy, allowed Bell to have an unfair competitive advantage, and would have brought US-style concentration to the Canadian broadcasting system.

According to the Canadian Press, newly appointed CRTC chair Jean-Pierre Blais felt the same way.

"BCE failed to persuade us that the deal would benefit Canadians," Blais said. "It would have placed significant market power in the hands of one of the country's largest media companies.

"We could not have ensured a robust Canadian broadcasting system without imposing extensive and intrusive safeguards, which would have been to the detriment of the entire industry."

The federal regulator says Bell already has 33.7 per cent of the English television viewing audience, something of which I was aware at the time of writing my last post. However, I did not know how far ahead Bell is of its nearest rival, Shaw Communications: Shaw has 21.9 per cent. That’s a pretty hefty difference!

Had the Bell-Astral deal gone through, according to the Canadian Press, Bell would have gained 42.7 per cent of the English viewing audience. The combination would also have given it 33.1 per cent of the French TV market.

"That convergence, integration and scale may lead to a point at which the size of an entity on a national level becomes so large that it hinders effective and healthy competition," the regulator said.

In spite of the backlash, BCE officials believed their acquisition would not stifle the broadcasting system’s “diversity of voices", and said they would add $200 million worth of funding for programs.

The Canadian Press did not specify, but I’m guessing this is Canadian programming. Of course, it’s always good when broadcasters are willing to fund home-grown programming, but Bell doesn’t have to be the funder. And yes, if the deal went through, we might have more Canadian programming available to us, but do we want it all produced by one single content provider?

Obviously the increased funding wasn’t a good enough strategy to convince the CRTC.

Bell said it needed to grow to compete with online competitors from outside Canada. It also pointed out that if the deal were killed, Astral's assets would be split up, allowing foreign web content providers to have the upper hand. Is that really a bad thing? That scenario would allow for increased “diversity of voices” in the industry, and as for dominance by foreign online content providers, I don’t think one company acquiring more assets is a way to compete. They, and the rest of Canada’s broadcasting conglomerates, can grow in other ways to make that happen. Perhaps that’s another topic for another post.

But I digress. At least us broadcasters-to-be and media watchers can breathe again.

Friday Fun with Bigbird: No Ruffling Feathers Today

Our old friend Big Bird has been receiving some unexpected publicity.

The media frenzy erupted after the last presidential debate, during which Mitt Romney said he loved Big Bird, but if elected, he would still cut government funding to PBS.

Big Bird made an appearance on Saturday Night Live, and stars in Obama’s new campaign ad in which Big Bird and Sesame Street are compared to Bernie Madoff and Wall Street.

Apparently the folks at PBS and Sesame Workshop aren’t too happy about the Obama ad. They prefer to remain nonpartisan, and I say hats off to them.

Big Bird is for small children and those of us who are children at heart and it’s probably best if we don’t mix politics with PBS Kids programs. We can let children learn their ABCs without them worrying who will be the next president. They’ll learn about that when they’re older.

Since it’s Friday, and I’m a child at heart myself, here’s Big Bird on Saturday Night Live having a little fun with his new-found stardom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJjn_2fFPx8

Music History: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

Thinking about pop music, the idea that “wow, has music changed” comes quickly to mind.

It’s hard to believe that ragtime piano dominated the musical landscape in 1900 and that by the start of the 21^st century awards were being handed out for the year’s best rap album. But listen closely and you realize that first impressions can be deceiving. A better assessment would be that “the more things change, the more they stay the same” – especially when you consider certain artists, their hit songs, and the kinds of music they’ve recorded.

Think for a start about Al Jolson, the man many called the world's greatest entertainer. He got his start as a black faced burlesque singer in the early 1900’s, and by the late 20’s, had scored more than 80 hit records in a period of 17 years. The depression saw Al’s popularity fade, but he was due for a comeback.

In 1946, The Jolson Story took the world by storm. Al Jolson, by then in his 60’s, provided the vocals and showed that he was still right up there with the new singers on the block (the likes of Perry Como and Doris Day). With that movie, Al had two top 10 hits – “April Showers” and “Swanee”, both of which had been big sellers more than two decades earlier. In using tunes that had already been successful, Al would blaze a trail for many musicians.

He hit number one with a brand new song in the summer of 1947: “The Anniversary Song”. Or was it brand new? The lyrics were, but the melody was based on an old Romanian waltz. "The Anniversary Song" again put Jolson in the top spot from December until March, and he stayed on the charts until the end of the year. It became the second biggest song of the ‘40s – a sure sign that familiar music was the way to go.

By the tenth anniversary of Jolson’s comeback, Rock and Roll was king; indeed a singer a few generations younger carried that very nickname: “The King.” Like Al, Elvis Presley was masterful in adapting music produced for black audiences and lifting it to popularity in white markets.

He did this with “Hound Dog” – a standard among Country and Rhythm and Blues artists (such as Big Mamma Thornton). But Presley’s version was the best selling single of his career and would be given a spot on Rolling Stone’s list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Elvis Presley was a young rock singer, but he knew pop music had continuity, and songs that had already won over Country or R and B fans would never fail.

His work had a profound affect on four lads from Liverpool – better known as the Beatles. John Lennon once said that: “if there hadn’t been Elvis, there would not have been the Beatles.” Around the same time, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, and Little Richard also shaped their sound, with songs like Holly’s “Words of Love”, Little Richard’s “Long Tall Sally”, and Berry’s “Roll over Beethoven.” The Fab Four stayed true to their roots, performing songs by these artists more than any others during their career. They just loved to play the tunes they grew up with, but they were actually setting a trend.

Rock musicians still swap songs, honour their forbearers, and learn from each other – giving pop music a foundation as the years go by.

That consistency is what makes the music great. Today, we are experiencing that in full force with artists like Michael Bublé, who sings standards written during Al Jolson’s era, rockers by Elvis or the Beatles, and other familiar fair – taking full advantage of a long standing trend in music.

It would seem that music built on musical memories is an important part of our culture; or perhaps it’s simply that great singers, songs, and genres never go out of style. I like to think both statements are true.