The beginning of the end of Facebook?

I've used Facebook for a few years now, and I've seen it grow and change in those years.  I've seen it grow large and have many changes.  This isn't an "I'm leaving Facebook" post, because I still like that it's a place to connect with people.  However, I've decided to talk today about what I see on the horizon for this beast of a social network.

I don't really like what Facebook has become today.  For one thing, I think the site makes too many changes, too often.  Changing things as an improvement makes sense, but only if it really improves the experience.  Too many changes end up confusing and frustrating users who may not be used to the previously-made changes.  Changing a site to take away a user's control over his or her own experience also isn't very good.  I now have Facebook nagging me to add 'likes' to my profile instead of a list of my interests.  What's wrong with a list?  I want to keep it that way.  Are they just going to delete everything I have on there if I take too long to change over?  When you make the decision for me, the site becomes less fun.  I don't think Facebook gets that.

When I started on Facebook, I liked it precisely because one could control what other people saw on your profile.  Your entire profile was, by default, private.  One had to request your Facebook friendship to see everything.  For a long time, the same was not true for the older social network, Myspace.  What attracted me in the first place to Facebook was the concept that you had a semi-safe place in the social arena.  Over the years, that became less true until we reached today's 'public is preferred' model of Facebook. 

I don't think it's a bad thing to allow people to make information public if they want.  I do think it's a bad thing to not allow them to make everything private if they want.  Who is Facebook to tell us what information we shouldn't hide?  They've given you a choice between making things public or just not posting them at all, thus making your profile incomplete and less useful to others.

I've opted out of their new "Facebook is everywhere and you can like anything at all" model, and I dislike the fact that all likes are now public.  These are things you want to share with your friends, but not necessarily the whole world.  Facebook either doesn't understand that or doesn't care.  And now I've reached the point of this entire rant:

If something better, easier, and more private comes along, Facebook is dead.

Users who migrated from Myspace to Facebook did so because Facebook provided them a better experience.  The same thing could happen again.  All it would take is one company to make a social site offering whatever Facebook is not.  I think the process would take longer because Facebook has become such a big part of people's lives, but if another site was truly good enough, it could and would happen.

Facebook needs to think less about how to grow their control of information and more about how to retain their user base.  The things they've done in the past year are note helping them do that.  If enough people get dissatisfied with the experience, like I am, they will stop using the site and Facebook will grow less quickly.

Watch out, Facebook. 

Just say no to a Jeff Buckley musical

According to this article, there are plans for a Romeo and Juliet-style musical featuring the songs of Jeff Buckley. 

I have just one word for that: No!

Thoughts On 'Solving History'

Last night I watched a new Discovery Channel program called Solving History with Olly Steeds.  It sounded interesting - British journalist Olly Steeds travels the world and tries to find out the truth about some of history's greatest mysteries and legends. 

After seeing the premiere episode (about finding the Ark of the Covenant), I no longer think it's an interesting show.  Sloppy, offensive and culturally insensitive are better words to describe it.

Olly takes a sort of Mythbusters-like approach to his show.  He tries to prove that things were possible - such as carrying the Ark out of Jerusalem through its underground tunnels.  He hires a carpenter to build an Ark much like the one described in the Bible, and then, with some help, attempts to carry it through the narrow tunnels.  Mission accomplished, although he had to take the Ark apart to do it.

What I dislike about the show is Olly's disregard for other peoples' cultures and religions.  Anything dealing with the ancient Jewish and Christian world is already touchy, but Olly takes things way too far:

• While in an Ethiopian Christian Church, each of which houses a replica of the Ark that, although a replica, is still considered holy, Olly tries to push his luck and enter its room.  The room housing the Ark, we are told by the church's priest, can only be entered by holy men - priests and bishops of the Ethiopian Christian Church.  No one else is allowed inside.  Olly asks the man how far he can go, and the priest keeps telling him that under no circumstances can Olly enter the room.  He's almost pleading with Olly, probably knowing that he will lose his job should he let a non-holy man enter the Ark room.  Olly admits in voiceover that he fantasized about going inside anyway.  He should have left it alone after the first 'No.'

• Out in the desert with the Bedouin people, Olly is sitting at a campfire eating the meal of freshly-slaughtered goat.  These Bedouins have gone out of their way to take Olly and his crew around the desert, show him their way of life, and even set up tents and slaughter an animal for him.  While eating the meal, one of the Bedouin men offers Olly some goat testicles, specially prepared for their guest.  He asks if they'll be offended if he says no, and the man says they won't, but they would be most pleased if he did accept them.  He does, and makes a face about it.  Now, Anthony Bourdain would never do that!  Nor would Andrew Zimmern.  I can sympathize with Olly, because I wouldn't want them either, but if I knew how special it was I'd probably at least make the effort and be grateful.  

• This last one is the most daring and most offensive.  Olly has tracked the Ark to Ethiopia.  The Ethiopian church truly believes that they possess the Ark and consider it the most holy of objects.  They consider it the presence of God on earth.  Only one man is allowed to see it.  He is the Guardian and he is not allowed to leave the chapel grounds.  His position is for life.  Any intruders are shot dead on the spot.  This is taken very seriously.  So what does Olly do?  First, he disobeys the Guardian's wishes for no cameras by using a hidden camera.  How disrespectful.  Then, he blatantly asks to see the Ark.  Did he really think they'd say yes to some schlub from the West with fancy cameras and no governmental or religious authority?  Olly knows darn well that no one is allowed to see the Ark, that this is tradition, and yet he still thinks he can try.  After being denied, he walks off and pouts about it.  Does he not realize that the entire point of the Ark for the Ethiopian church is that no one is allowed to see it?  That it is so holy that it must be protected at any cost?  I felt like he was showing a complete lack of respect for Ethiopia's traditions and faith, and all for the benefit of some 'look at me' travel TV show.  That's ridiculous.

So, that is the first and last time I will be watching Solving History.  If that's how Olly Steeds treats other cultures, I want no part in it.  He could learn a thing or two from Anthony Bourdain.

Thoughts On New Jimi Hendrix Material

Although I'm not as impressed with him as I was when his music was new and fresh to me, I'm still a fan of guitar hero Jimi Hendrix.  Today's news that Jimi's estate will release an album of mostly previously-unreleased material was a surprise to me.  Pleasant or unpleasant?  That's what I'm here to explain.

Of course, we know these recordings will be interesting.  But will they be any good?  Hendrix only released three studio albums and one live album in his short career.  Everything else is either incomplete, a demo, or a not-intended-for-release live version.  This means that only the three studio albums and Band Of Gypsys consist of music that Jimi wanted people to hear.  All other releases can be considered works-in-progress.

Posthumous releases are always touchy.  On one hand, it's fascinating to hear new-to-you material.  On the other hand, you can only dig so deep in the vaults before you hit the bottom.  I think some of the Jeff Buckley releases are proving that point true. 

Will I buy this new compilation?  Perhaps, but perhaps not.  It will not be too high on my list.  There are a few Hendrix releases I still want to buy.  If I get this new one, I will buy it when I get around to it. 

As for the re-releases of the studio albums -- is this really necessary?  They were done quite well during the late 1990s.  The liner notes for most of them are very informative and beautiful.  I wasn't too impressed with the liners for Electric Ladyland and I'd be tempted to buy a new version of the album if those were done right.  I'd be even more likely to buy it if they got rid of the extreme panning and fading that I found really distracting.  Otherwise, I don't feel a need to buy new versions of these albums.  They were done right before.

Interesting music discussion on NPR

NPR posted a very interesting discussion about the state of the music industry as part of their Decade-In-Review this week.  The part that interests me is the mention of streaming music as a deterrent to illegal downloading.  Personally, I have pretty much stopped downloading songs because I can listen to most of them for free online any time I want.  It's convenient, and it really doesn't take much longer than opening an MP3 or finding a CD or record and playing it.  Sites like Myspace and Grooveshark give you so much music on demand, for free.  That has been the biggest change in my listening habits lately.  I think of a song, search for it on Myspace, and listen.  Nothing could be easier.

Of course, streaming has its downsides.  You need an internet connection to do it, and you need to be at your computer.  You can't stream while in your car or out for a walk.  I think streaming will be part of the public's listening habits in the future.  If you want to listen to something and you're at your computer, you can stream it.  If you want to take it away from the computer, you can buy it as a download or *horrors* buy it on CD (or whatever format wins out in the future).  Yes, I think there will always be physical music around.  Humans have too much experience owning things to give that up.

Streaming is the way of the future.  I can see a day when there are no record companies (or the companies exist only to promote the artist) and musicians make money by touring and selling merchandise.  Actual recorded music will be streamed for free and treated as the art it actually is. 

A Message To The Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame

Dear Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio:

After seeing your list of current candidates to be inducted in this year's class, I have a suggestion for you.

Just stop.

That's right.  Stop inducting people unless they really, truly deserve it.  Stop inducting non-Rock and Roll people into a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame unless you change the name of your organization to the Popular Music Hall of Fame or some similar name.

Each year you induct five artists/bands into the Hall of Fame, and each year the number of non-worthy candidates increases.  Do you really need an induction class every single year?  Why not induct only those artists who truly deserve to be in there.  Pretty soon, your Hall of Fame will become meaningless.  It may already be so.  Are you trying to induct the best artists, or are you trying to induct any and all artists who may be familiar to any segment of the U.S. population?  If there are not five artists who deserve induction, don't induct five of them!

Who deserves to get in this year?  KISS, I think, just for the spectacle they put on over the years.  Rock and roll is all about spectacle, after all.  Genesis, for being artistically creative, at least until the 1980s.  The Stooges, for being one of the earlier and more influential punk bands.  It can't hurt if Anthony Bourdain likes 'em.  Get that guy on your panel.

Everyone else - meh.  ABBA?  Disco group.  LL Cool J?  Definitely in the hip-hop hall of fame, but not here.  Jimmy Cliff?  Reggae Hall of Fame, but not here.  Not until you run out of other people.  Donna Summer?  Are you serious?  She's everything rock and roll is NOT.  Red Hot Chili Peppers?  Not yet.  Time will tell what their influence will be.  I'm leaning toward yes, but give it time.

What's the use of a hall of fame if anyone can get in?  

Really Confusing Syndication

Lately I've noticed that some RSS feeds I have on Google Reader that I thought were just not updating actually are. I'm not getting notified that they're updating. What's up with that? Isn't the point of RSS to NOT have to go to the site to see if there's anything new? I'm thinking it's probably not a problem with the reader, but with the feeds themselves.

In any case, I have some catching up to do. I'll also have to check some of the feeds that are sitting empty and make sure they're not in limbo either.

More thoughts on LeGarrette Blount

I've been thinking about the whole LeGarrette Bliount post-game punch debacle, and I think I came to the wrong conclusion about Blount's suspension. I still agree he should not be allowed to play, but I was wrong to suggest that he should be completely kicked off the team and lose his scholarship. With access to teammates, coaches, support services and school, LeGarrette will have a better chance of turning things around. The coaches can keep an eye on him and help him come out of this situation in better shape. I honestly don't know how much the coaches are responsible for what happened (probably not much at all), but their responsibility to the player doesn't end here, and it really shouldn't. However, I don't think Blount should be allowed to travel with the team or be there during games. He will be a target for any opposing fan, much less our own fans.

I've read a lot of comments about the situation on the internet, and many people have disagreed with Blount being suspended the entire season. I think an entire season is the right thing to do. Where do you draw the line? Just because a line hasn't been drawn before doesn't mean it can't ever be drawn. If each player who did such a violent thing after or even during a game was kicked off the team, violent incidents would be less likely to happen.

This whole thing is really making me think about what I tolerate from sports. I'm a hockey fan, and punches are thrown in nearly every game along with much, much worse at times. And I'm advocating that a football player be kicked off a team for throwing one punch? Why should there be a difference between hockey and football? Maybe there shouldn't be. Maybe each hockey player who fights should be disallowed to play in his league. It may seem harsh, but if that punishment had been in place all along there would likely be no culture of fighting in hockey.

Another thing I've read is that "football is a violent sport! Deal with it!" Well, where do we draw the line? How violent is too violent? There's a huge difference between tackling and punching. Guys usually don't get injured if they're tackled. Where's the line? If someone dies, would that be too far, or would it just be "violent football"?

I realize sports are physical, but now I'm wondering just how much violence we should accept as part of the basic game(s). Wow, I really found something to blog about this weekend!

Ashamed

I never thought I'd say this, but today I am ashamed to be a Duck.

After last night's University of Oregon-Boise State football game, a loss for the UO Ducks, UO running back LeGarrette Blount punched a Boise State player after the player touched him and made a comment. Blount then tried to go after some fans who were taunting him and had to be led out by coaches and security. The shameful video can be found here, if you can't already find it on Youtube by search for LeGarrette Blount.

Today is has been announced that Blount will be suspended for the rest of the season. As of right now, he will still be allowed to practice and travel with the team, remain on scholarship, and access services. I, for one, don't think that goes far enough. I think he should be completely kicked off the team. I don't think it sends a good message to keep him around the team. He should be shunned for his outrageous behavior.

Yes, Blount should be punished, but he also needs to be helped. Simply keeping him from playing football is not going to help him become a better person. I think he should be given some sort of counseling and anger management at the very least. This is clearly a young man - still a kid, really - who needs some help growing up. He lost it last night, and he's going to lose it again someday if someone doesn't help him learn to control himself and think before he acts.

Read More . . .

It's not broke, so don't fix it

Yahoo! redesigned their browser toolbar. Buttons are now called 'apps,' and those 'apps' are much larger than the buttons on the previous version. What's the use of a toolbar if you can't see most of the things on it? Also, it just looks worse. The previous version was useful, if you use Yahoo!, and not too bad-looking. This new version looks like something children would use.

Yahoo!, can I please have the old toolbar back? I'm not liking the new one.

Step it up, Myspace

I really wish Myspace hadn't redesigned their Myspace Music service.

The old way:

1. Search for a song
2. Click play button
3. Popup player loads
4. Song starts playing

Estimated time between searching and playing: 20 seconds - 2 minutes (depending on how quickly you found the song).

The new way:

1. Search for song
2. Click play button
3. Wait until something happens
4. Realize nothing is happening
5. Wonder if or when something will happen
6. Click on album name and be taken to album page
7. Wait a long time until album player is ready to use
8. Click on desired song a few times
9. Finally listen to song

Estimated time between searching and playing: 5 minutes (depending on how much patience you have for waiting for nothing to happen).

You had a really good thing, Myspace! Why does it now take me so long just to listen to one song? That's not progress. Please make this service usable.

Celtic Music and Me

Today is St. Patrick's Day, a day when America, mostly, celebrates all things Irish.

Celtic music (that is to say, traditional music from any of the Celtic nations) is my absolute favorite genre. I'm not Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Breton or even Galician, but something about the sound of this stuff stirs my heart and soul. It brings me peace and joy whenever I listen to it. I can never get enough, and I hope I won't ever get enough.

It all started with Riverdance. I remember watching the commercials and being so amazed at all those stomping feet. I bought the video of the show and enjoyed watching it. Oddly enough, the music didn't really catch me, although I did wonder what those strange things were in one of the solo sections (and they turned out to be Uilleann bagpipes).

I didn't go beyond that until I became interested in fiddle music. I started with Nordic, then moved on to Cajun. It was only a matter of time before I discovered Celtic too. Appropriately enough, my proper introduction to the greatness of Celtic music came via The Chieftains.

I had heard of The Chieftains, and knew they played Irish music, but that was all I knew. One summer in college, I was visiting a friend in Arizona. We were at one of those big music stores, looking at all the albums. The Chieftains' Water From The Well was displayed in one of the listening stations. I was curious, so I put on the headphones and gave it a listen. I was stunned. The sheer energy and passion that poured out of those tiny speakers hooked me instantly. I nearly started to dance right there in the store! That was the moment I started to love this music.

Some time after that, I saw the video of Water From The Well on PBS. It reminded me of what I had heard in Arizona, and caught my interest even more. I don't remember the exact year, but it was either 200 or 2001. Whichever year it was, that Christmas I bought Water From The Well at Barnes and Noble, along with a copy of Angela's Ashes. The best of Ireland! Needless to say, the full album was as good as I expected.

After that, I started sampling the full album previews on the Green Linnet Records website. I also listened to Celtic music on internet radio, which is where I discovered my next Celtic love, Natalie MacMaster. I heard the sweet fiddling of this Cape Breton beauty and knew I had found one of the best fiddle players in the world. Sometime in spring of 2001, I had my first Natalie MacMaster album. I also found the Afro Celt Sound System in 2001, and loved them so much that they are now my favorite group. By that winter, I had two ACSS albums plus my first Lunasa CD.

Since those early days, I have discovered many more groups and bought many more albums. Five of them are Natalie MacMaster's, and I am buying a sixth very soon. I have seen Natalie in concert four times now, and I even saw the famous Chieftains in 2005 (if memory serves correctly). We don't get nearly enough Celtic bands here in town, but I always hope for someone I haven't yet seen to make the journey.

When I originally wrote this post, I included a few paragraphs about why I don't like Celtic stage shows such as Celtic Woman or, yes, Riverdance. However, after some thought, I'm taking that part out. Who am I to tell others what is good or bad? I'll just say that I don't care for such stage shows. I prefer the authentic, traditional music performed by musicians who aren't trying to impress anyone or be world famous. If they are famous, they are famous because their music is good. I go for the kind of Celtic music that has some rough edges, that isn't perfectly produced, that is mostly acoustic and done with as much true passion as possible. If others like something a little more sparkly, that's OK. I'll stick with what I like and hope others discover it too.

The genius was too much of a genius

I'm wondering if I'll ever be able to obtain a greatest hits for Ray Charles that includes all of the songs I'd like to have. There are many collections out there, but few have everything essential. Rhino Records put out a good 2-disc collection, and I should have bought it while I could. It's now discontinued and selling for over $60 on Amazon. The Ray soundtrack comes close, but it includes live versions. I want the studio tracks.

I may have to get two collections instead of one. Ray put out a huge amount of music during his life. It seems impossible to get a handle on it all. I don't know why the record companies can't put out a greatest hits with all of the true hits. Wait, I do know - they want you to buy more than one album!

*UPDATE* I found this. It's expensive, but if it's still available when I have more cash, it might make a good investment.

Head, meet desk again

My technology is falling apart.

First my printer stops printing correctly. Now, it appears my CD burner/drive won't burn CDs anymore. That has been a problem for a while now, but never this bad. I tried to make an audio CD twice. Both times, I got an error. I'm tired of losing blank CDs because of these errors. These things cost money!

Luckily, a brand new DVD burner appears to be not too expensive. I just wish I knew how to install them myself.

I hope my iPod and camera still work, or I'll scream.

Head, meet desk

I finally managed to purchase (actually, it's a Christmas gift) an external hard drive so I can back up all my music, photos, and all my other files. Keep in mind that my previous hard drive crashed in 2007, and by sheer luck the contents were transferable to a new drive.

I plugged the drive into my computer, installed the software and - it won't back up my files! I think it has something to do with the "this drive does not back up locked files" message that I see on the bottom of the program after I tried to do a backup. Well, wonderful. How do I find out what files are locked? Also, it would be helpful, software writers, if you'd create a file explaining what the little check marks mean. Some are black and some are greyed out. Does that have anything to do with it? I can't seem to find an explanation. Of course, the website isn't much more helpful. I did find one thread on the boards about locked files. The only response gives a help link that no longer works.

I may have to contact Seagates' support to find out just what I'm doing wrong and get an explanation of how this software is supposed to work.

All I want is to get my computer files backed up in case I get another hard drive crash. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so!

Explain this

I'm currently reading The Pelican Brief by John Grisham. It's your typical thrill novel - woman discovers secret, bad guys try to find her, woman tries to stay one step ahead of them.

I have my doubts about that kind of plot. What makes these characters so savvy all of a sudden? One minute they're typical students, lawyers, whatever. The next minute, they're oh-so-knowledgeable about how to disguise themselves and stay hidden.

I'm not buying it. In real life, people like this would not know what to do and make some sort of mistake, thus getting captured by the bad guys.

Thoughts on the grammys

I didn't even watch much of last night's Grammy broadcast, but that doesn't stop me from having opinions:

• Way to go, BeauSoleil! They won their second Grammy in the Best Zydeco or Cajun category for their Live At The 2008 New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival album. I don't think that one is even widely available, but hopefully that will change now that it's a Grammy winner. I'm sure Alligator Purse will be nominated in the Zydeco/Cajun category next year.

• I think Coldplay should have won album of the year. Raising Sand by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss is a very good album, but not as amazing as Viva La Vida. Coldplay saved their career by making that album! It's also way more creative and experimental.

• In the Best New Artist category, I really would have been happy with either Adele or Duffy. I favor Duffy, but both gals are great singers.
  

• Watching even a little of the Grammys reminds me why I don't like award shows. The speeches are tacky and boring, there are very few awards given out (really, these shows seem to exist just for performances now), and the interactions, acceptance speeches and everything else just seem so awkward. There's a reason why most of these people sing and play for a living.

• Record Of The Year should be renamed single of the year. What does 'record' even mean in today's world?
  

• If there were justice in this world, Joe Jackson would have been nominated in Album Of The Year for Rain. In fact, Rain could have provided many nominations for Joe. But, no, there is no justice. A great album gets ignored.

Ugh

Well, I finally managed to delete the 'Beausoleil' label from all my posts. Then, I tried to apply the label to all the posts to which it is actually relevant - only to have the same thing happen again! Of course, Blogger has no easy way to delete an entire label. I'll have to do this all over again (50 posts at a time - Blogger's software doesn't like anything larger) and probably give up on this label. Oh well.

In other news, I have finally filled up my 250-CD CD holder. Yikes! This is what happens when you buy a lot of two-disc sets. I'm trying to divide the collection in half and put the other half in another holder - but my second-largest holder is now full too! I'm going to have to buy another big holder, or just figure out a new system of storing them. Yes, I know, I should go completely digital. I just don't want to lose all my music when my hard drive crashes. That almost happened in late 2007, and I don't want to take any more chances. When you buy your music online, every lost byte is money down the drain.

Sunday Scribblings - 1/4/09

For richer or poorer

I think America could do with less of the former. I'm not saying everyone should be poor, but I do think some moderation is in order.

Our country, and most of the world, is going through very tough economic times. If any good comes out of it, I hope the result is that people will appreciate what they have instead of taking the drive for bigger, better and more to ridiculous levels. Does anyone really need to buy a new TV every holiday season? Does anyone need to buy a brand new car every other year? Does anyone really need a house with more rooms than they will ever possibly use?

It's OK to have a TV, a car, and a house, but it's necessary to realize that ownership of those things makes one a very lucky person. Some people don't have any of the above and would be extremely grateful to have such things. Those who aren't so lucky would be very appreciative of that 30" TV that you want to replace with a 40" model. They would be happy to have a car that runs and gets them where they need to go. They would most certainly like to have any house at all instead of a hotel room or apartment with leaky roof and no heat.

I realize that consumer spending is what drives our economy, but the greed that drove Wall Street to its limits is the same greed that leads people to covet that larger house, bigger TV and more expensive cell phone. Let's get back to reality and appreciate what we already have instead of fretting about what we don't have.

Songs that grow on you

I've been listening to my new Neil Finn album, trying to let the songs sink in and make their home in my heart. It got me thinking about the digital revolution in music and the death of the proper album. When you buy your music online, piece by piece, song by song, there is no such thing as 'letting a song grow on you.' Songs aren't always supposed to find your favor immediately. Some songs need time to do their magic. Those are the songs you remember fondly. It's always rewarding to have that moment when you finally 'get' a song. Of course, there's also the matter of hearing a song in the context of an album, figuring out where it fits into the whole.

If the album truly dies, how will music making change? Will musicians give up quantity for quality? Will they focus only on the songs they (or their producer, or their record label) deems most commercial and widely appealing? It is likely that those sneaky, rewarding songs will be discarded and forgotten. Listeners will no longer have the opportunity to give things a chance and have faith in the abilities of their favorite artist. They'll merely buy what they like and ignore what they don't. Hits will become big hits and misses will sink into the void.

Just a few thoughts from an old-fashioned music fan.