Sunday, July 17, 2011
The Ogre's Den: Don't give me your Attitude
The Ogre's Den: Don't give me your Attitude: "Hey, Readerland. Two blogs in two (and a half) days? Belee dat, playas. Sorry. Just a little Teddy Long impression. Anyway. So, today..."
Don't give me your Attitude
Hey, Readerland. Two blogs in two (and a half) days? Belee dat, playas. Sorry. Just a little Teddy Long impression. Anyway.
So, today's topic is something that I've been hearing a lot about ever since the WWE went to their PG rating, which is (repeatedly, usually from people who weren't alive when Hulk Hogan was in the WWF) "Bring back the Attitude Era!" I'm here to discuss why this would be a bad idea. But first, a quick recap.
The Attitude Era (or Austin Era, as it's sometimes called), began in 1996 and "Stone Cold" Steve Austin is usually credited with creating the Attitude Era with his Austin 3:16 promo. This would begin a rating war between WWF's Raw Is War and WCW's Monday Nitro. Raw is War went from a family-friendly posture to a more adult-oriented product in order to try to regain the lead in the ratings race. Nitro held the lead for 84 weeks, with Raw finally getting the lead back when Stone Cold faced Vince McMahon one-on-one for the first time ever. On October 26th of 19998, Nitro would beat Raw in the ratings for the last time. Raw would never relinquish the lead, holding it until WCW folded in 2001.
Some of the most famous things from the Attitude Era are Austin 3:16, the birth of The Rock, Mick Foley being thrown off of Hell in a Cell onto the Spanish announce table, the formation of Degeneration-X, the Montreal Screwjob, the death of Owen Hart, the Fingerpoke of Doom, and (from the same episode as the Fingerpoke), Eric Bischoff giving away the ending of the Rock/Mankind World Title match, causing thousands of viewers to change the channel from Nitro to Raw.
Then, there are the BAD things that happened during the Attitude Era. Such as: the Kennel From Hell Match, the Big Bossman stealing Big Show's father's casket during the funeral, Mae Young giving birth to a hand, Booker T. losing a match to Big T in which Booker lost the rights to use the letter T (yeah, I know how stupid that sounds, and it was), so Booker because G.I. Bro, Droz enabling Hawk's drug problems and possibly "killing" Hawk, and probably a lot more things that I've blocked out of my memory. Fortunately.
Anyway, I understand how some people who grew up with the Attitude Era can look at the PG era and hate it, because it's not the same thing that they learned to like when they were younger. However, myself being an adult during the Attitude Era, and understand that there were bad parts as well as good parts, I can watch wrestling these days without demanding the return of the Attitude Era.
Here's the thing a lot (and I mean a LOT) of people forget, when it comes to the Attitude Era: it was a necessity. The only way Vince McMahon and the WWE could compete with WCW was to push the envelope, set the envelope on fire, and keep going.
My main point here is that the Attitude Era was needed because of the competition from WCW. Is anybody else right now competing with WWE for dominance atop the professional wrestling food chain? No. TNA...excuse me, Impact Wrestling's flagship show, Impact, is doing relatively decent ratings, but those ratings are still below WWE's secondary show, Smackdown (roughly a 1.2 rating for Impact compared to about a 1.5 for Smackdown). With no one even really nipping at their heels, WWE has no reason to shift back to the Attitude Era.
So, a lack of competition led to the Ruthless Aggression Era, which gave us some of the greatest matches of all time, the Smackdown Six of Edge, Rey Mysterio, Los Guererros (Eddie and Chavo), and Kurt Angle and Chris Benoit (and no, the name Benoit is not a bad word) with all of the six except Chavo becoming World Champion, and the brand extension (maybe I'll do a blog on why the brand extension is a good thing). So, what happened then, is the question.
My own personal opinion is that the WWE realized that they were losing viewers now that the Attitude Era was over, so what they decided was that in order to get new viewers, they had to start all over. They decided to change to the PG Rating, although it's hard to get a consensus of when the change actually starts, but a lot of people I've talked to say early 2008, and they're pulling in the kids with characters like John Cena and family-friendly entertainment. The reason for this is hooking in those kids and making them loyal to the product, like WWF did with Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, and the Ultimate Warrior. You get the kids in, hook them with something they like and then, as they age, you can change the product back to a more TV-14 kind of thing.
The PG change was, theoretically, in early 2008, which means it's been three and a half years since they started bringing in the kids. I would say the average kid's age who watches the product is 7-to-9 (give or take), so that makes them 10-to-12 now, if they started watching in 2008. That means a couple of more years and the WWE could be making it's way back to a more TV-14 product. However, even with a change to a more mature product, don't expect the Attitude Era to return for a few reasons.
First off is that there are no megastars like Stone Cold and The Rock to be had as full-time performers. Nobody currently has the "It" factor like they did and I'm not sure much of anybody in wrestling these days has "It."
Secondly, there's no need for another Attitude Era. There's no competition, so nothing warrants the extremity of the Attitude Era.
Personally, I don't mind the PG Era. What I mind is that it seems like there's not enough storylines to go around. Or maybe it's a lack of quality storylines. If you have bad storylines, adding in cusswords and gestures gives you bad storyliens with cussing and gestures. Those things can't make a bad storyline better, regardless of what the Attitude Era showed us.
Stick with it, wrestling fans. It will get better, just like it always has.
That's all I've got for now. Until next time, take care and be awesome to each other. #WWWYKI
So, today's topic is something that I've been hearing a lot about ever since the WWE went to their PG rating, which is (repeatedly, usually from people who weren't alive when Hulk Hogan was in the WWF) "Bring back the Attitude Era!" I'm here to discuss why this would be a bad idea. But first, a quick recap.
The Attitude Era (or Austin Era, as it's sometimes called), began in 1996 and "Stone Cold" Steve Austin is usually credited with creating the Attitude Era with his Austin 3:16 promo. This would begin a rating war between WWF's Raw Is War and WCW's Monday Nitro. Raw is War went from a family-friendly posture to a more adult-oriented product in order to try to regain the lead in the ratings race. Nitro held the lead for 84 weeks, with Raw finally getting the lead back when Stone Cold faced Vince McMahon one-on-one for the first time ever. On October 26th of 19998, Nitro would beat Raw in the ratings for the last time. Raw would never relinquish the lead, holding it until WCW folded in 2001.
Some of the most famous things from the Attitude Era are Austin 3:16, the birth of The Rock, Mick Foley being thrown off of Hell in a Cell onto the Spanish announce table, the formation of Degeneration-X, the Montreal Screwjob, the death of Owen Hart, the Fingerpoke of Doom, and (from the same episode as the Fingerpoke), Eric Bischoff giving away the ending of the Rock/Mankind World Title match, causing thousands of viewers to change the channel from Nitro to Raw.
Then, there are the BAD things that happened during the Attitude Era. Such as: the Kennel From Hell Match, the Big Bossman stealing Big Show's father's casket during the funeral, Mae Young giving birth to a hand, Booker T. losing a match to Big T in which Booker lost the rights to use the letter T (yeah, I know how stupid that sounds, and it was), so Booker because G.I. Bro, Droz enabling Hawk's drug problems and possibly "killing" Hawk, and probably a lot more things that I've blocked out of my memory. Fortunately.
Anyway, I understand how some people who grew up with the Attitude Era can look at the PG era and hate it, because it's not the same thing that they learned to like when they were younger. However, myself being an adult during the Attitude Era, and understand that there were bad parts as well as good parts, I can watch wrestling these days without demanding the return of the Attitude Era.
Here's the thing a lot (and I mean a LOT) of people forget, when it comes to the Attitude Era: it was a necessity. The only way Vince McMahon and the WWE could compete with WCW was to push the envelope, set the envelope on fire, and keep going.
My main point here is that the Attitude Era was needed because of the competition from WCW. Is anybody else right now competing with WWE for dominance atop the professional wrestling food chain? No. TNA...excuse me, Impact Wrestling's flagship show, Impact, is doing relatively decent ratings, but those ratings are still below WWE's secondary show, Smackdown (roughly a 1.2 rating for Impact compared to about a 1.5 for Smackdown). With no one even really nipping at their heels, WWE has no reason to shift back to the Attitude Era.
So, a lack of competition led to the Ruthless Aggression Era, which gave us some of the greatest matches of all time, the Smackdown Six of Edge, Rey Mysterio, Los Guererros (Eddie and Chavo), and Kurt Angle and Chris Benoit (and no, the name Benoit is not a bad word) with all of the six except Chavo becoming World Champion, and the brand extension (maybe I'll do a blog on why the brand extension is a good thing). So, what happened then, is the question.
My own personal opinion is that the WWE realized that they were losing viewers now that the Attitude Era was over, so what they decided was that in order to get new viewers, they had to start all over. They decided to change to the PG Rating, although it's hard to get a consensus of when the change actually starts, but a lot of people I've talked to say early 2008, and they're pulling in the kids with characters like John Cena and family-friendly entertainment. The reason for this is hooking in those kids and making them loyal to the product, like WWF did with Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, and the Ultimate Warrior. You get the kids in, hook them with something they like and then, as they age, you can change the product back to a more TV-14 kind of thing.
The PG change was, theoretically, in early 2008, which means it's been three and a half years since they started bringing in the kids. I would say the average kid's age who watches the product is 7-to-9 (give or take), so that makes them 10-to-12 now, if they started watching in 2008. That means a couple of more years and the WWE could be making it's way back to a more TV-14 product. However, even with a change to a more mature product, don't expect the Attitude Era to return for a few reasons.
First off is that there are no megastars like Stone Cold and The Rock to be had as full-time performers. Nobody currently has the "It" factor like they did and I'm not sure much of anybody in wrestling these days has "It."
Secondly, there's no need for another Attitude Era. There's no competition, so nothing warrants the extremity of the Attitude Era.
Personally, I don't mind the PG Era. What I mind is that it seems like there's not enough storylines to go around. Or maybe it's a lack of quality storylines. If you have bad storylines, adding in cusswords and gestures gives you bad storyliens with cussing and gestures. Those things can't make a bad storyline better, regardless of what the Attitude Era showed us.
Stick with it, wrestling fans. It will get better, just like it always has.
That's all I've got for now. Until next time, take care and be awesome to each other. #WWWYKI
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Ogre's Den: Throw THIS on me...
The Ogre's Den: Throw THIS on me...: "Hey, Readerland. The Ogre is back to drop some knowledge, so let's just get right to it. We were on a roadtrip/at the Mensa Annual Gather..."
Throw THIS on me...
Hey, Readerland. The Ogre is back to drop some knowledge, so let's just get right to it.
We were on a roadtrip/at the Mensa Annual Gathering for the past couple of weeks and I met some new people. One of the guys (Hey, John!) and I were talking and I mentioned that I DJ for PartyFM (listen.partyfmradio.net 1 pm Eastern today!). He asked what kind of music I played and I attempted to explain my shows to him and we got into a discussion about different music styles that we liked and disliked and it turned out that we were both fans of progressive rock. Well, one discussion lead to another and I was talking about how I dislike music that seems overproduced or that has way too much going on at the same time in it. I've heard this called "The Timbaland Effect."
What's funny about that is that I'm also a fan of classical music and if you have a full orchestra doing their thing, everything is incredibly layered and complex and has a lot of different parts going on at the same time, but it almost never feels like it's too much.
I think this is the reason I've always been attracted to music from the 40's, 50's and early 60's, because most everything was simple. Vocals, guitars, drums, and maybe some keyboard. Bluegrass and blues are awesome for that reason. Even in their complexity, they keep things from getting too bogged down. I've heard some tracks, especially in hip hop and dance music, where the producer seemed to feel like every single second of the track needed to have some kind of sound in it, even during the break, when it really should just be the beat and maybe one effect. The listener needs a break from all of the sound to appreciate what they're hearing. If you continuously throw sound at people, they become used to it. You need to ease the throttle back sometimes or you'll blow out the engine.
Okay, I'm not sure that last analogy made any sense.
Anyway. What I'm trying to say is that while complex music can be beautiful, sometimes there is also a beauty in simplicity and some artists would be served well by learning that.
A friend of mine (Hey, Matt!) is a "creates music" DJ instead of "playing music" DJ like me and he produces really good stuff. He produces techno, but it tends to be very minimalist, which I think makes it great. Check him out at stia.bandcamp.com.
Anyway, that's all I've got for now, but I'm sure I'll have more thoughts soon. Until next time, be awesome to each other. #WWWYKI
We were on a roadtrip/at the Mensa Annual Gathering for the past couple of weeks and I met some new people. One of the guys (Hey, John!) and I were talking and I mentioned that I DJ for PartyFM (listen.partyfmradio.net 1 pm Eastern today!). He asked what kind of music I played and I attempted to explain my shows to him and we got into a discussion about different music styles that we liked and disliked and it turned out that we were both fans of progressive rock. Well, one discussion lead to another and I was talking about how I dislike music that seems overproduced or that has way too much going on at the same time in it. I've heard this called "The Timbaland Effect."
What's funny about that is that I'm also a fan of classical music and if you have a full orchestra doing their thing, everything is incredibly layered and complex and has a lot of different parts going on at the same time, but it almost never feels like it's too much.
I think this is the reason I've always been attracted to music from the 40's, 50's and early 60's, because most everything was simple. Vocals, guitars, drums, and maybe some keyboard. Bluegrass and blues are awesome for that reason. Even in their complexity, they keep things from getting too bogged down. I've heard some tracks, especially in hip hop and dance music, where the producer seemed to feel like every single second of the track needed to have some kind of sound in it, even during the break, when it really should just be the beat and maybe one effect. The listener needs a break from all of the sound to appreciate what they're hearing. If you continuously throw sound at people, they become used to it. You need to ease the throttle back sometimes or you'll blow out the engine.
Okay, I'm not sure that last analogy made any sense.
Anyway. What I'm trying to say is that while complex music can be beautiful, sometimes there is also a beauty in simplicity and some artists would be served well by learning that.
A friend of mine (Hey, Matt!) is a "creates music" DJ instead of "playing music" DJ like me and he produces really good stuff. He produces techno, but it tends to be very minimalist, which I think makes it great. Check him out at stia.bandcamp.com.
Anyway, that's all I've got for now, but I'm sure I'll have more thoughts soon. Until next time, be awesome to each other. #WWWYKI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)