Weezer & Hurley: a match made in heaven

When I heard that alternative mainstays Weezer had named their latest album Hurley, after the scruffy, lovable, overweight character from ABC's recently concluded series Lost, I was not at all surprised. (A giant mugshot of actor Jorge Garcia is the album's cover.) The nerdy social set that Weezer helped to popularize in the mid-'90s would seem the perfect target demo for a semi-obscure cultural reference to a TV character like Lost's Hugo "Hurley" Reyes. (As far as I know, the album's songs have nothing to do with the dude, the myth, the legend.)

Certainly, Lost was a hit for ABC but tapered off in viewership over the years. But even late in life, it still had that cult following many modern shows would kill to have. Its viewers pretty much marketed the show free of charge for the network. Its younger viewers grew up on the Internet, Twitter, Facebook and multitasking between TV and laptop—and would automatically take their discussions and theories about the show from their TVs to the blogosphere (the very definition of "viral"). All one has to do is go to a site like Lostpedia.org to see what I'm talking about. I guarantee people are still analyzing Lost on a daily basis on that site—and throwing out educated guesses as to what happened after Hurley took over the island (a viral video, included in the DVD box set of the show, further fanned these Hurley-theory flames).

Is the music industry missing the boat in how South by Southwest is organized?

Having never been to the South by Southwest music showcases in Austin, Texas, I went last Friday with an open mind (I was there for the tail end of the weeklong event). I was not going on business; I was there purely for pleasure, as a music fan. (I admit I was also there for the famous Texas barbecue.)
  A little background: I had been to Austin about two years ago for the popular Austin City Limits Festival, which spans a weekend at the end of the summer and features bands from a wide range of genres. (It cost about $180 for the all-weekend pass.) It was a great time, and I ended up really getting into several of the artists who performed there. SXSW, though, was markedly different. There was a more corporate vibe about it—like if you didn't have either a press pass or had shelled out the $180 for a badge (or $500-plus for the weeklong pass), you were "not on the list." (And maybe that's the point.) Certainly, its focus is on the music and the music business—and the labels, performers and their (upcoming) albums. At its vry core, it's just another trade show, but it just so happens it's for a "cool" industry. In recent years, I'd heard the stories of being there to see the next "it" band perform and the ever-talked-about "secret show," featuring some of the big players in the industry. So, I was interested as a music fan to see what it was all about.
  Now, I'm not complaining here—I had a fantastic time and got to see some great showcases (that had free entry). I'll be buying a few albums from Scottish band Frightened Rabbit soon enough (saw them at a free Filter magazine function). But it occurred to me after noting that pretty much none of the major acts were free to the public that this is a big missed opportunity for the music industry.

Free is free, however you want to look at it

I'm right now listening to Radiohead's In Rainbows and reminiscing about when I downloaded it for "free." (I actually decided to pay two or three pounds for it.) What a concept that was! And then, of course, came the backlash from the industry, musicians and critics. "It's setting a dangerous precedent," some said. "Free is the end of the record industry," said others. But all the while, I felt it was a good idea. I also remember, around the same time, Paste magazine copycatting by doing its own pay-what-you-want for a yearlong magazine subscription (I ended up paying $1, I think; I didn't renew after the year). Sure, the "free" idea isn't all that novel. Hulu and Pandora have been doing it for years now (with obvious setbacks—ad breaks—for users), as has just about every major industry for as long as I can remember. Think about the "Buy one, get one free" deals you hear about all the time from restaurants. Or even the free deli-tray giveaways at the supermarket. (I always loved those as a kid.) The reason for those is obvious: You take one bite of the free aged Boar's Head cheddar, and you just have to buy a half-pound. I say free is good. Keep it coming.

—Posted by Will Levith

Hey, the Grammys weren't bad this year!

I'm the staff music nut. I know everything there is to know about music, and I have no problem letting everybody know it. What am I reading right now? A book about Radiohead's masterpiece, OK Computer. I bought some new vinyl over the weekend (the new Flaming Lips record Embryonic). I listen to the radio, CDs, vinyl daily. So, of course, I'm going to watch the Grammy Awards, right? Well, in recent years, I've been totally uninterested in the telecast. Every year, when I see the Black Eyed Peas getting tons of award noms, I start to wonder what's wrong with the voting committee. (This year, sadly, was no different—and they performed. Ugh.) I mean, the music is OK, but do they deserve Grammy nominations? But this year was different. You had actually cool bands like the Kings of Leon (above) and Zac Brown Band in the running for major awards (and winning!). You had Lady Gaga, who may or may not be a dude, leotarding it and singing face to face with the Modern Elton John (who is nowhere near as good as the Ghost of Elton John Past). You had a Michael Jackson 3-D tribute (I didn't have the specs, but the tune was still great). You had Stephen Colbert, who was hilarious and won an award, which I guarantee will be worked into The Colbert Report in coming episodes. This year had it all. Here's hoping CBS and the Grammys have finally figured out the right equation—at least for me. What did you think?

—Posted by Will Levith

Michael Jackson leads the pack in banner year for tasteless Halloween costumes

Since Halloween is supposed to bring out the ghoul in us all, I guess it's no surprise that partygoers are planning to masquerade as dead celebrities this year. The high-profile recently departed from the worlds of music and TV seem to be the most popular, which means there will be lots of Michael Jacksons, Farrah Fawcetts, Billy Mays and Ed McMahons wandering around this weekend. Guess nobody's bothering to ask, "Too soon?" (Jackson, by the way, is the top costume choice in numerous polls.) Movie-ticketing service Fandango found in a survey that the much-anticipated concert film This Is It may be inspiring tons of Jackson wannabes, but Twilighters aren't far behind. (Neither is the comic-based Wolverine.) Trick-or-treaters will be drawing from movies based on graphic novels (Watchmen), toys (G.I. Joe), children's books (Where the Wild Things Are) and sleepers (Paul Blart: Mall Cop, The Hangover). Alice in Wonderland, Tim Burton's update of the acid-trip tale, doesn't launch until next spring but snagged the most write-in votes in Fandango's survey of more than 1,200 people. Media and pop culture continue to spawn the lion's share of dress-up ideas, like Kate Gosselin and her ridiculous hair-don't, the steamy True Blood vamps and President Obama. All I know is, I'd better not open my door to a blubbering Glenn Beck. No candy for him!

—Posted by T.L. Stanley