Grammy nomination concert cheapens awards

The Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences' decision to air a nomination special and concert for the Grammy Awards is slightly baffling. The Grammys have had ratings struggles (as have most award shows) and are looking to gain viewers. In the last few years, they've expanded upon the nomination announcement, adding an over-stuffed concert to the announcement of only a few nominees. Wednesday's special was another awkward show, in which contractually obligated CBS stars stuffed as much music and bombast into one hour, with little emphasis on the nominations. The nomination reveals were strange, between the odd delay in the song playing and the artists' image on the big screen and the presenters' reading of the song (don't forget missteps like Nicki Minaj's inability to pronounce Bon Iver). I'm disappointed with myself for wasting time on them (especially since it made me forget The Soup, which is now, inexplicably and annoyingly, on Wednesdays now).

When other award shows present their nominees, the announcements are short, sweet and to the point. Here, the award presentations are second to the performers during the concert; I'm sure we'll see many of the same performers at the Feb. 12 ceremony anyway. They aren't going to be as fun come February, because we've already seen the show. A tribute to a song going into the Grammy Hall of Fame (Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five's "The Message")? How special is this tribute if it's not even during the real Grammy Awards? Wouldn't it make more sense to profile the song come February, instead of here? How special is an in Memoriam? And does Lady Gaga really deserve to perform multiple times (I say this as someone who saw her in concert in 2010 and enjoyed it, by the way, so Little Monsters need not attack)?

This concert existed solely to further clutter the TV with concerts that masquerade as award shows. Come on, how many ACMs, AMAs, WMAs, VMAs, etc., do we really need? The way the Grammys present themselves now, the awards are secondary and losing meaning year after year.

CBS, the Academy: If you want to distinguish your awards from others and keep the Grammys' reputation for being the ultimate prize in music, keep the awards fair and a one-time only event. Note: fair does not necessarily mean "outside of the mainstream." But, really, the screech-fest that is Katy Perry's "Firework" is one of the best recordings of the year? Just because it's popular, doesn't mean it's good, but that's another matter. The way it is now, it's just another way to fill multiple holes in the schedule.

Inexplicably, shows not named Parks and Recreation win at 2011 Emmys

Above: Emmy loser Stephen Colbert (likely drunkenly) tweets about the similarly snubbed "Parks and Recreation." I wonder what those after parties are like ...


To put it simply, the 2011 Emmy Awards paled in comparison to the strong 2010 broadcast. Host Jane Lynch was likable enough, but the stereotypical jokes fell flat (A woman hates men so much, specifically, the "Entourage" cast, that she became a lesbian!) and the opening number wasn't funny or engaging. it was like the writers were actively trying make us dislike the very likable "Glee" star.

Once again, "Modern Family" took home many of the top prizes during the night, including their second consecutive Outstanding Comedy Series prize, during a season many fans and critics considered to be a step down from their freshman season (like "Glee," which, appropriately, didn't win any of the broadcast awards. Oddly, Fox, the show's broadcaster, couldn't claim any awards Sunday.). The Outstanding Comedy Series trophy belonged to "Parks and Recreation," which many critics agree found a perfect groove this year.

Supporting Actress Julie Bowen (who had the best line of the night, "I don't know what I'm going to talk about in therapy now. I won something!") and Supporting Actor Ty Burrell deserved their wins (if Nick Offerman would have been nominated for "Parks and Recreation," that would have been another story), but it was disheartening seeing "Louie" lose to "Family" in the Outstanding Writing category.

And then there was the Outstanding Actor and Actress. I knew these categories would be complete messes, and they were (granted, I expected the voters to pick Laura Linney for a show featuring characters with awful personalities that was considered edgy only due to its morose subject matter and placement on pay cable). As "Office" star Rainn Wilson said (maybe a little unprofessionally, albeit accurately):



"Big Bang Theory" star Jim Parsons once again won an award for playing himself over Steve Carell's final "Office" season, while Melissa McCarthy beat Amy Poehler, the heart of the genius that is "Parks and Recreation."

This night taught me one thing: Chuck Lorre must bribe Emmy voters. Lorre's shows are often derided by critics (and television snobs) for playing to the lowest common denominator and yet the Emmys award the actors from the shows. Stop giving Lorre's ego fuel with these awards and award good actors from good shows. It seems like Emmy voters forgot they weren't voting for the very likable McCarthy's performance in "Bridesmaids," but for yet another formulaic Lorre show ("Mike and Molly"). The same goes for Lorre's "the Big Bang Theory" and Parsons. You don't deserve an award for playing yourself, which is why, even though Louis C.K. is wonderful, I don't know if would have he deserved the award for acting (Writing? Yes. He was robbed.). Just as Jon Cryer inexplicably won for "Two and a Half Men" in 2009, Chuck Lorre gets praise, and good comedy suffers.

At least the presentation for Outstanding Actress was amusing and sweet, thanks to Poehler (also see 2009's Outstanding Supporting Actress nominees), who organized a pageant-style presentation to McCarthy. Even though these women (McCarthy, Poehler, Linney, Tina Fey and Martha Plimpton), all talented (even if the quality of their shows differ), were competing against each other, they still came together in a good-humored fashion. The classiness of these ladies as McCarthy won helps offset my anger:



Oh, and the Emmys continued their almost complete snub of "the Colbert Report." Lord knows I love "the Daily Show," but lately, Stephen Colbert has just taken with his show and ran; the show's single win in 2008 is not enough.

On a lighter note: the Lonely Island delivered with a medley of their songs, including Maya Rudolph doing a dead-on impression of Lady Gaga's role in "3 Way (The Golden Rule)." Also, I commend the person(s) who came up with the "Office" segment featuring so many stars (among them, Cee-Lo Green and his spinning "Voice" chair). I was nearly doubled over laughing at this wonderful cameo:



As for the miniseries categories, "Downton Abbey (Masterpiece)" was the big winner (writer Julian Fellowes, director Brian Percival), while "Mildred Pierce"'s Guy Pearce and Kate Winslet (now possessing the EGO portion of the EGOT) took home acting awards (along with "the Kennedys"' Barry Pepper). Also, it's a shame Dame Maggie Smith wasn't at the show, for I'm sure she would have appreciated accepting her Outstanding Supporting Actress award from the cast of the incredibly classy "Entourage."

While the comedy portion of the evening was largely devoted to "Modern Family," the drama and miniseries categories showed a little more variety. Amazingly, "Friday Night Lights," the critically-adored, previously shunned show, won two awards, Outstanding Writing (Jason Katims) and Outstanding Lead Actor (a very shocked Kyle Chandler). The ecstatic atmosphere at the Nokia Theatre could be felt at home. Chandler's costar, Connie Britton, was absolutely adorable, giddy over Katims and Chandler's wins, as was presenter Minka Kelly, who presented the award to her former costar.

Otherwise, it was a single-award night for "the Good Wife" (Lead Actress Julianna Margulies), "Boardwalk Empire" (Director Martin Scorsese), "Game of Thrones" (Supporting Actor Peter Dinklage), "Justified" (Supporting Actress Margo Martindale) and "Mad Men" (Outstanding Drama). It seemed AMC purposefully delayed "Breaking Bad" this year (it aired too late this year to be eligible), so that Jon Hamm could beat Bryan Cranston for once, but it wasn't to be. Hamm and fellow also-ran Hugh Laurie probably shouldn't hold their breaths on ever receiving a swan song Emmy, either, as Carell saw this evening.

As ThinkProgress' Alyssa Rosenberg wrote during the broadcast, "Much of this [opening montage, featuring many shunned shows] makes me sad, because, oh hey, look at all those awesome shows that didn't get the recognition they deserved and that I could be having a much better time watching on DVD instead of something as POINTLESS AND FRIGHTENING AS THE EMMYTONES!" She's right about those awkward Emmytones singers - Joel McHale looked like he was losing more of his soul as each second passed. The show lacked the comedic touches of years past, with only a few bright moments. A couple surprises here and there couldn't hide the mess the broadcast became.

What are your thoughts on the Emmys? Who was shunned, wrongly awarded? Who deserved their awards? Was the show funnier than I'm making it out to be? Are you an angry Chuck Lorre fan out for my blood? Leave a comment!

A complete list of winners can be found on Emmys.com.

2011 Video Music Awards, in a word, awkward

Pictured: Adele, one of the few redeeming stars of the 2011 VMAs.

For some reason, I had high hopes for this year's MTV Video Music Awards. I thought between the stellar performance lineup, Britney Spears receiving the Video Vanguard Award and tribute to one of my favorites, Amy Winehouse, would help boost the show beyond its usual train wreck status.

I was wrong. MTV is so desperate for their show "Awkward." to be a bigger hit, they crafted the entire VMAs around the concept of being "Awkward." Minus a few bright moments, it was a dud.

The awkward began on the pre-show, where co-host Selena Gomez asked boyfriend Justin Bieber (whose haircut, upon certain angles, made his head look like Megamind) what the name of his snake was, to which he replied, "Johnson." Who wants to join me in line for the brain bleach? It then continued with Lady Gaga's weird show opener. Dressed as male alter ego Jo Calderone, she began with a monologue about Gaga that tried to prove she was desperately self-aware of her own hype. Her voice sounded strong during "Yoü and I," especially when she was only playing the piano (I don't care much for the studio version, with instruments that make noise not unlike chewing on ice. Her stripped-down performance was one of the highlights when I saw her in concert in 2010). However, it soon got too cluttered, with unnecessary dancing and more musicians (no offense to the legendary Brian May, any guitarist would have been too much). The biggest letdown? Not seeing Gaga fall down - MTV, why did you cut away from that glorious moment?

Gaga never stepped out of the Calderone character during her multiple appearances that night, which was annoying. I won't lie, I loved her outfits (yes, even the meat dress) at the 2009 and 2010 awards, thought she gave great speeches and a good performance and she was anything but subtle. But this year? Sadly, it was too much on an artist we're accustomed to getting too much from. Adding to the awkward was the will-they-won't-they kiss (that ultimately didn't happen) with Spears. The whole segment was a mess: a random crew of dancers dressed up as Spears, and Gaga's introduction of Spears was crude and rambling.

Then, when Spears finally got the chance to accept her award, rather than let her give a speech thanking people, she was forced into the awkward banter with Calderone (not at the fault of Gaga - it was clearly scripted) and the two introduced (a pregnant) Beyonce's performance. MTV hyped the Video Vanguard Award going to Spears, and then she was barely on stage. I doubt Spears was all that heartbroken about not giving a long speech (as her acceptance speeches are usually pretty rote), but it was still a bit rude on MTV's part. They helped turn Spears' award into the Beyonce show.

Speaking of performances, why were most of them so weak? Gaga's became too cluttered, Kanye West and Jay-Z's was disappointingly lacking charisma and Lil' Wayne's was downright painful.

Young the Giant gave a good performance, but the band isn't big enough and the performance wasn't memorable enough, given their status as rock's sole representation in the performances this evening (although this is more a problem with MTV than the band). The evening's house singer Jessie J can carry a tune, it's simply a shame that her original music is so boring; it's what will keep her from hitting it big in the United States.

The best performance of the evening easily belonged to Adele, who gave us a break from the overplayed "Rolling in the Deep" to deliver a beautiful rendition of "Someone Like You." While Beyonce sounded wonderful, too, her song choice ("Love on Top") was lacking, which is why Adele gets the upper hand.

Bruno Mars also helped to bring down the house during the tribute to Amy Winehouse. Singing "Valerie," a Zutons song Winehouse and producer Mark Ronson covered. Mars gets a lot of flack, especially from rapper Tyler the Creator (winner of the evening's Best New Artist award), but he delivered a vocally strong performance that stayed true to Winehouse's style. Let's hope he's learned from his 2010 cocaine arrest and Winehouse's struggles with drugs, and he can continue to perform well in the future.

Regardless, all in all, it was mostly a waste of two-and-a-half hours. As usual, who won the awards was irrelevant to the spectacle that was the show itself. Katy Perry won the top award, Video of the Year, for the video where she shoots stuff out of her boobs. No, not that one. The other one.

If you missed any of the awards, MTV.com has them on demand as well as plenty of coverage. Am I being too hard on MTV? Were there other highlights or awkward moments that should be addressed? Do you know why Cloris Leachman was there? Leave a comment, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

And now, one last nice moment: Kanye West's sweet, happy moment with daddy-to-be Jay-Z as his wife showed off her growing belly onstage:

2011 Emmy nominations announced

The nominations for the 63rd Primetime Emmys were released Thursday morning, so crazy television fans got up early (or stayed up late) to see them unfold.

A few stray observations:

*There were a couple underdogs that made their way in: Louis C.K., Johnny Galecki and Matt LeBlanc were nominated in the Lead Actor in a Comedy Series category. Kathy Bates was nominated for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series. Idris Elba scored two nominations (as did Tina Fey), outstanding actor in a miniseries ("Luther") and outstanding guest actor in a comedy series ("The Big C") ... yet he was never nominated for playing Stringer Bell. "Late Night With Jimmy Fallon" got nominations for Outstanding Variety Series and Writing for a Variety Series (God, I cannot wait for Stephen Colbert's reaction, since the BFFs for six months will be competing against each other). Oh, and Lady Gaga was nominated (for Variety Music Special).

*"Glee" lost its bids for lead actor and actress nominations, as did Toni Collette, and Neil Patrick Harris. "Big Love" was completely shunned in its final season. Also, I just want to remind everyone that Steve Carell has never won an Emmy. Although "the Office" is pretty lackluster now, I think it would be fitting to honor Carell for his seven years of work. Besides, the Emmys are notorious for not honoring people in the year that they should be (as Carell deserved the Emmy in 2006).

*I blame Rob Lowe submitting himself for Outstanding Lead Actor for splitting the votes between him and the truly deserving nominee, Nick Offerman. Lowe's role on the show is not that of a lead actor and his character is nowhere near as funny as Offerman's Ron Swanson, although Lowe's massive ego likely tells him otherwise. I strongly believe that if he hadn't submitted his name, any nominee voters that wanted "Parks and Recreation" to get a lead actor nomination would have had no choice but to vote for Offerman and not Lowe simply because he's a bigger name, and Offerman could have gotten a nod. Plus, no love for Chris Pratt, or any of the high-caliber writers? It's a disgrace.

*While "Community" has been a mixed bag (when it's good, it's astounding, but when it's not up to form, it's painful), Danny Pudi deserved a nomination for his equally hilarious and heartbreaking Abed. I will admit to a certain amount of bias, as Abed does remind me of a more socially awkward version of myself (although not much more awkward). The fact that the show didn't even garner one nomination is sad.

*The nomination for Laura Linney don't surprise me, but they frustrate me. A comedy doesn't always have to be laugh-out-loud to be outstanding, which is an argument that a lot of people make in support of shows like "the Big C." However, is a show really outstanding when the tone is incredibly insulting? Most of the characters, including Laura Linney's Cathy, are very unlikeable, and not in an endearing way (see "Arrested Development").

*I enjoy the way that the great pilot for "the Killing" was nominated, since, clearly, voters were not biased by seeing the rest of the show, which turned into a complete train wreck that even Outstanding Drama Actress Mireille Enos could save. This spot should have gone to "The Walking Dead."

*The good news? Even if the show is weak (as it was the last time it was on Fox, with Ryan Seacrest hosting), the Outstanding Writing for a Comedy or Variety Series category, featuring the often-hilarious videos introducing the nominees, should be back this year.

*What's up with the Emmys picking nominated females to present the awards (Melissa McCarthy was nominated), but the males are awkwardly shunned? Joshua Jackson this year, Joel McHale last year.

I could go on and on, but I've already rambled enough, my apologies ... to quote Kenneth Parcell, I just love television so much.

The full list of nominees and categories can be found here.

What do you think are the major upsets and surprises this year? Any outrageous inclusions or exclusions?

Lady Gaga holds the key for VMA greatness

The MTV Video Music Awards air next week, and it will be interesting to see what spontaneous (see: Kanye West last year) or orchestrated (see: Madonna/Britney/Christina kissing in 2003) controversies will take place. Like the rest of the music industry, MTV is struggling and the VMAs are awarding something that is becoming increasingly rare and irrelevant on the network and the musical climate as a whole: music videos. Unless one is a night owl or has MTV Hits, the network's digital cable, 24-hour music video station, televised music videos are a rarity.

That's why MTV needs to rely on shocking moments to get people talking about the show. They need performances to remind people why the artists MTV shoves down viewers' throats are worthy. Normally, I find myself complaining about the VMAS; they're an award show I watch purely out of habit. Yet, last year's show was actually wonderful to watch. The Kanye/Taylor Swift debacle was a true shocking moment even MTV couldn't fathom happening. The performances, from my personal favorites, Green Day to even acts I'm not normally fans of (Jay-Z and Alicia Keys, for example) were strong.

However, the key moment for me? Lady Gaga. She was absolutely ridiculous and engrossing to watch. Her performance was so anticipated by fans and haters alike, curious to see what she would come up with. She certainly delivered.



This performance was off-the-wall and outrageous, and that's what made it so perfect for the VMAs. Yet, it also proved that she had talent, and that's why it was good for the VMAs, because it proved that not everything on MTV is awful. Personally, it made me a fan of hers, just because I was in awe of how ridiculous it was, yet it didn't feel as though she was trying to force controversy (like the aforementioned kiss).

At the moment, MTV does not have her performing or even appearing at this year's show. Without her, the show will lose a major power force. She is the most nominated artist of the night and anything she does will be so analyzed by the press and the office water cooler, it can help make the VMAs seem relevant. Without her, who will the big draw be? Rihanna? Justin Bieber? They certainly have their fair share of fans and haters, but they do not posses anywhere near the same public interest or controversial matter as someone like Gaga. Even someone formerly controversial like Eminem has become more mainstream.

Looking at Gaga's tour schedule, she has a break this weekend that would coincide perfectly with a VMA appearance; I hope MTV is just holding off on announcing her appearance to build hype. Because without her, they will really be missing out this year.


On a side note, I saw Lady Gaga in concert Saturday. It was such a spectacular party atmosphere, it was impossible not to walk away feeling good afterward. Yet, it also proved that she has legitimate talent beyond her costumes and crazy nature. Even though I was in the upper section of the Palace of Auburn Hills, it was great. My photos from the event are here. I'm not a great photographer, but I still got some good shots!

The 2010 Emmys deliver, thanks to Jimmy Fallon and company

I love Emmy night. Most people I come into contact with on a regular basis don't understand the fierce passion I have when it comes to Emmy nominations, wins and the broadcast itself. After last year's show was fairly terrible, I was concerned about whether I'd be impressed again, and I certainly was (yes, NBC did something right).

This year's epic opener kind of proves why I love the Emmys so.



Jon Hamm and Betty White shimmying. Perfect song choice. Joel McHale being Joel McHale (side note: I loved that the Emmys used Joel liberally throughout the show, yet never nominated Community for anything). Jimmy and Tina Fey bringing back their adorable chemistry from their Weekend Update days (but, Tina, don't try to sing, please). Lea Michele not making me gag. If that alone doesn't make the Emmys worth watching, I don't understand how you can call yourself a television fan. For God's sake, they made you laugh at Kate Gosselin without hating her. That's quite the feat.

This year really provided a lot of fantastic moments. My second favorite?



Jimmy's dead-on impression of Billie Joe Armstrong from Green Day, during his tribute to LOST. While I love TV, I'm also a very devoted Green Day fan, so I nearly fell out of my chair in a combination of laughter and giddiness. Just ask anyone at the BG News, who put up with my reactions to the awards all evening long.

I know a lot of people hate Jimmy, but I think he delivered tonight. He played to his strengths but he didn't dominate the show.

Now, to the actual winners.

I was impressed with the comedy wins. I love 30 Rock, but I can handle them losing, especially to a show like Modern Family. I've expressed my feelings about Glee here before, and I just think that they won the awards they deserved, mainly Jane Lynch. I expected vote-splitting for the three Modern Family nominees in the Outstanding Supporting Actor category, but I'm happy Eric Stonestreet took it (actually, I would have been happy with anyone but Jon Cryer). I strongly believe that in terms of consistency, cast excellence and comedic value, Modern Family is a far superior show to Glee. I have no complaints about it winning, even if it isn't 30 Rock. It's time for some new blood. As for one Modern Family complaint? I wasn't wowed by the pilot episode, which earned Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan an Emmy tonight. 30 Rock's Anna Howard Shaw day, written by Matt Hubbard, was a better episode.

Edie Falco won for her wonderful performance on Nurse Jackie, making her the first woman to win for both comedy and drama acting categories. I would have liked to have seen Amy Poehler (who looked amazing so soon after having her baby) win, so it would help the woefully under-viewed Parks and Recreation, but there's no denying that Edie is great. Due to my inherent bias against CBS comedies, I haven't seen the Big Bang Theory, so I don't know about how deserving Jim Parsons win was. Like with the suppporting actor category, I was just happy it wasn't Larry David, Tony Shalhoub or Matthew Morrison.

As for guest actors, I was impressed. As much as I love and adore Will Arnett, Neil Patrick Harris was great on Glee, and Betty White's win for SNL was also well-deserved. John Lithgow for Dexter was a no-brainer, too.

Now, for drama. Mad Men won once again, over Dexter's amazing season four. As I've said before, Mad Men may be a show that's well executed, but it would have been nice to see Dexter rewarded for its stellar season. Likewise, I'm frustrated Michael C. Hall lost for Outstanding Actor. Yet, since he lost to Bryan Cranston, who put forth a great body of work this year on Breaking Bad (even if the season was a little inconsistent), who has deserved his three consecutive awards.

The award that brought me the most joy, though, was seeing Aaron Paul win for Outstanding Supporting Actor for Breaking Bad. He was just astounding to watch this season. I loved hearing the insane amount of applause for him and his speech was so heartfelt. I'd say it's a three-way tie between him, Edie Falco and Eric Stonestreet for favorite speeches tonight.

(I'm ashamed to say that I'm very unfamiliar with the nominees for the dramatic actresses. However, just because I do root for the underdogs, it would have been nice to see Connie Britton take home the award. I have seen a scant few Friday Night Lights episodes, and her work impressed me.)

Lord knows I love the Daily Show and Jon Stewart, but I wish Conan O'Brien or Stephen Colbert and their respective shows could have won instead, if only so we could have actually received an acceptance speech for them. Conan's nomination intro was pretty humorous too, and it was wonderful seeing him in the audience, strike/unemployment beard still in tact.

Another highlight? Ricky Gervais, as always. It was silly for NBC to book him to host this year's Golden Globes, a show where the host does little work. This isn't meant as a dig at Jimmy, because I think he did great, but the Emmys are what Ricky is made to host. A low light, however, was seeing Jason Sudeikis bring January Jones as his date. I don't care too much about celebrities' private lives, but I just find January to be boring and basic (put on display during her awful SNL episode), especially compared to his ex-wife, the hilarious and gorgeous Kay Cannon (who was nominated tonight for 30 Rock). It's just one of those couples that baffles me.

Alright, I've rambled on long enough about the Emmys, but I just love them so. What did everyone else think were highlights and low points? Any red carpet mishaps I missed? Seriously, if there were any awful/hilarious/amazing red carpet moments, please let me know. I had to work, so I was only able to watch the show on a stream online, and it was hard enough to pay attention to them, I didn't have time to watch red carpet shows, either.

For a list of winners, click here.

Miley Cyrus puts on a controversial performance at the MMVAs

Last night, the MuchMusic Video Awards, put on by Canada's MuchMusic network, aired last night (they also aired in the United States on Fuse, but, sadly, my cable company does not offer Fuse, so I could only see the trainwrecks on the Internet).

One of the most notable moments was Miley Cyrus' performance of "Party in the USA," (a perfect song to sing to a Canadian audience, of course) and it was not pretty.



On one hand, I do have to give her credit for not lip syncing. However, when the results of her singing live are this gratingly atrocious, it's a bit difficult to give credit where credit may be due.

However, it's her outfit that really bothers me. The "Chongalicious" look just does not work for Miley. More noticeable, however, is the overtly sexual nature of the performance, and the sense of desperation I get from her.

I just don't get why her idea of growing up = whoring it up. You don't have to dress sluttier and engage in faux lesbianism to show that you're getting older. It disturbs me that a girl who is not even legal yet is performing like this. I believe in the saying "age ain't nothing but a number," to the extent that I doubt teens suddenly realize their sexual maturity the second the clock strikes midnight on their 18th birthday. Miley probably isn't going to grow up a whole lot in the next five months before she turns 18. However, she IS still a child by the law, so it bothers me.

I have been called a hypocrite for criticizing Miley's sexually charged performance because I am a fan of Lady Gaga, who is, by and large, far more provocative with her lyrics and revealing outfits. And no, I do not have a problem with Gaga's sexuality in her performances.

It's just that with Miley, I get the impression that she is SO DESPERATE to act mature, act like she's not a Disney girl anymore, and this is how she's attempting to show it. It's creepy since she is so young, and with her creepy family, it just makes me uncomfortable. I realize that as she grows up, she probably will be willing to be more provocative, and that makes sense. But right now, it just feels like a totally desperate sex kitten shtick that gives me the creeps, and saddens me a little.

You can dress slutty, but please don't look at dressing slutty as your only way to prove maturity.

I don't get the same sense of desperation from Lady Gaga as I get with Miley. I apologize if that makes me sound like a crazy fan for Gaga, because I swear I'm not. Because with Gaga, that's who she was at the beginning of her mainstream career. She wasn't like Miley, she didn't try to use a sexual appearance to appear ~mature~. Gaga is sexual, and, what's important to me, legal. She wasn't some tween star, she wasn't jail bait. It's not just young girls who are looking at Miley, it's creepy people who shouldn't be looking at a minor like that. Does anyone remember those countdowns until the days the Olsen Twins or Taylor Lautner turned 18?

I will say that one could argue that Stefani Germanotta's transformation into Lady Gaga could be seen as desperate. However, that transformation wasn't in the public eye. I don't get the same icky feeling I get from seeing Miley prance across the stage as a 17 year old who we all knew as Hannah Montana as I do when I see Gaga doing the same thing. Miley just seems so eager to drop the Disney label, and I wish she didn't have to turn to sexuality as her only way to rebel against Disney.

Again, it's not that I have a problem with pop stars being sexual. It's using sexuality as the only way to appear grown up that bothers me.

At the time-wasting mecca that is ONTD, this was, naturally, a hot topic. Many felt the same icky feelings about Miley's performance, while others felt as though people were being unjustifiably harsh on the singer. User "jasmina12345" made an interesting, and rather grim point:

"The fact that she equates taking off her clothes as a means of getting attention and establishing herself is the problem ... Clearly she's being told that what she's doing is the authentic 'her' because at the end of the day, she's expanding her audience and expansion of an audience = more money."

How sad it is that those in charge of Miley's career, including father Billy Ray Cyrus, seem to be pushing her in this direction (remember his approval claps after her similar 2009 Teen Choice Awards performance?). I feel bad that Miley apparently feels as though she has to be so overtly sexual as a child in order to garner attention. I guess she's right, to an extent. I mean, people are talking about her now (and I'm not helping the problem), it's just that the discussion isn't positive.

I don't mean to sound like a slut-shamer or a prude. I recognize that teens are becoming more and more sexually active, and, as I previously said, I'm fine with musicians expressing themselves in ways that may involve sexuality.

It's when the attempts are done by an underage girl in a seemingly confused and desperate fashion that I'm bothered. Although I'm not a fan, I wish that Miley could still feel as though she didn't have to stoop to such levels in order to maintain her fan base.


I'm curious as to what people feel about televised performances such as Miley's, or others in the past. Can they be tasteful and fun? Or do they go over the line?

Social networks and live blogs make television personal, part 2

Yesterday, I posted part one of my story about the connection between social networks and television. Here is part two of my story.

Coletta feels that the fusion of television and Internet communities will allow for better viewer feedback on the content they are watching. “People were very passive ... we have so much more power today,” he said. He cites the recent example of “Chuck” fans creating uproar over the romantic entanglements between the main characters.

As a result of the episode plots, the show’s creators had to assure the fans that they were not going to completely jeopardize the characters’ relationships. “It’s bringing creators and fans closer together. Like, I remember with Joss Whedon, girls in class would know everything he did or said.”

However, as Miller points out, it’s not just those behind the show who can be overwhelmed by social networks and live blogging. “You need to find just the right amount of population,” she said. “If you have too many people, you have repetition, like on Twitter.”

Repetition is a major problem on social networks; in a fast-moving chat or feed, users will have the same reaction to an event. For last year’s Video Music Awards, MTV set up their own Twitter monitoring device to see Tweets about the show, and there was a major spike in Tweets chiding Kanye West for famously interrupting Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech.

Additionally, too many users can spoil the fun, as was the case for the Oscars, when the massive influx of visitors to Oh No They Didn’t caused the servers to frequently crash.

Miller also believes that difficulty may arise when attempting to merge television audiences and Internet users. “I feel like my attention is diverted from the show to my computer, the discussion can be so compelling.”

Is social networking a hindrance to peoples’ social lives, or does it help? Opinions may differ. Miller wonders if the affect of Internet discussions on a person’s life is overstated. “Are you really being social when talking on the Internet, or are you just as shut off from the world than without it? You may have real discussion, but not ‘perform’ for a group of people in a social setting,” she said.

Coletta, however, would liken the experience to social situations. “Everyone’s interested in this stuff,” he said. “You’d talk about [television] with your friend on the end of the couch the same as you do online.” He feels that because the people posting on social networks and blogs about shows, especially live ones, are just average television fans, they are relatable to users.

Citing a popular “LOST” site created by Britain’s Sky channel, Coletta explains, “They build these communities, they’re just a couple of guys sitting around. They’re probably not making money, but it’s what they like to do.”

Do you agree or disagree, or do you have other thoughts about this trend? Leave a comment!

Social networks and live blogs make television personal

The lines between television and the Internet have blurred in recent years, and with the rise of social networking and live blogging, that change is accelerated.

Social network Web sites such as Twitter and online communities such as LiveJournal’s entertainment and celebrity gossip page Oh No They Didn’t allow for strangers all over the world to connect and discuss television shows and events live, as they unfold on the screen.

Dr. Montana Miller, a popular culture professor at Bowling Green State University, says that social networks and Internet communities are gaining popularity because they can help create bonds that would not have occurred in real life.

“It offers companionship,” she said. “With communities, there’s a sense that you’re watching with friends. In chats I read, many users say ‘I’m so glad to be watching with you,’ or ‘I didn’t use to enjoy these evens until I was talking to you guys.’”

Miller’s analysis is reflected on sites like Oh No They Didn’t, which hosts discussion posts for every major award show aired on television, in which users can discuss the winners, losers and shocking moments. For the Oscars earlier this month, four discussion posts were made, with members creating over 20,000 comments on the show throughout the evening. “Entertainment Weekly” offers live blogging pages for major award shows as well, showing that major media outlets, and not just smaller Web sites and blogs, are connecting televised events with Internet content.

As Miller noted, users do express their happiness for finding the groups so they can express their feelings about television events frequently viewed by individuals at home. On a “Saturday Night Live” discussion post (another Oh No They Didn’t staple), user “eeagle” wrote, “[sic] this episode was epic and i glad i got to spend it with you guys!” User “kerfuffleboat” found that the posts are worthwhile and enjoyable for the virtual company they supply. “[Sic] I missed the last two posts here and I was actively sad about not being around for them. idk [I don’t know] if that's pathetic or if it means ~we've all bonded.~ I'll go with the latter!”

“For those who are interested in a show, you can watch it at home and not think twice,” said Dr. Chuck Coletta, a colleague of Miller’s in the popular culture department at BGSU. “With fan communities online, people who are really interested in a show, they may be the only ones in their towns who are interested. People want to connect, so they Google [a show], and people find each other.”

Coletta argues that shows such as “LOST” allow for long-term blogging projects that can allow users to develop complex theories for shows, and they can feel a bigger attachment to the show and the show’s fans. “’LOST’ is the best example, it’s intricate and fast,” he said. “TV and the computer are going to be one thing, with running comments during the show, and LOST live blogs give users all the control now.”

Miller also sees award shows as common discussion fodder, as well as reality shows. “The sites I watch discuss ‘Jon and Kate Plus 8’ and 16 and Pregnant,’ and I’m surprised so many people watch them.”




What does everyone think of social networking and television? Do you enjoy it, or do you find it distracting and uninteresting? Is it changing television, or just a passing fad? Leave a comment with your thoughts!


Part two of my story is posted here, so be sure to check it out!