Dan Gould

What a great performance by the Bears: 1 penalty, no sacks allowed, no turnovers. And everyone was picking New Orleans (I heard that nearly 70% of the money wagered in Vegas was on NO). Whatever happens tonite, I like their chances. I'd like to see the Pats win and think they have a shot, though not a great one, but it would probably be best for me if its Indy. Then there's no wishy-washy feeling on my part. And I won't piss off the rest of my Chicago loving family by taking any pleasure in a Pats win, were it to happen.

I doubt your average Idol viewer knows who he is!

I never implied or even remotely suggested that you believe it can't get passed 300 episodes. I have no idea where you came up with the idea that I've put words in your mouth. You're right, and the nutshell difference between us is that you believe it will experience a significant decline in ratings by the 2009 season. I believe the show is a unique cultural phenomenon and will remain a ratings powerhouse three seasons from now.

I don't know Yusef's music as well as I might, is that name he gives it serious or just mumbo-jumbo meant as an alternative to "jazz"? Perhaps self-publicising. MG Well, the CTI record must have been twenty years before this interview, so I doubt he was self-publicizing that LP. Does the record itself give a definition or explanation for audophysiopsychic?

I honestly wonder if you know anything at all about television. According to MSNBC, last week's premiere was seen by a record 37.3 million people, representing a five percent INCREASE over last year's record. Also, there really are very, very few hit shows that cross the 300-episode mark. 250-270 seems to be a brick wall to me. AI already has 189. How do back-to-back record ratings constitute "tapering off"? Because the rate of the increase is decreasing. The second derivative is negative. Learn some calculus, Dan. Tell you what, when entertainment reporters shout "Oh my god, the rate of the increase in American Idol's ratings is decreasing!" then I'll give a flying fuck about calculus. In the meantime, you should think about the fact that no show can tend toward 100% ratings. There is an upper limit to any show's ratings, and there is no reason why Idol can't maintain a rating near their current staggering highs. Think of one of those functions that increases fast then slows its rate of increase til it keeps getting closer and closer to, oh, let's say a 45 share. Furthermore, it is obvious that there is a huge core of Idol fans (let's say 40 out of that 45 share) - what exactly is going to turn them away from the show? Oh yeah - all those old judges. You didn't define it by whatever BS definition of success you want to propose. You declared that it is off the air: So, you would be wrong. Try not to change the subject (now its your definition of "success") when you are shown to be wrong. This is another foolish comment from someone who knows nothing about television, or the difference in economics between first-run syndication (Jeapardy) and network TV broadcasts of cheaper-than-cheap reality TV (AFHV). Jeapardy has clearances in how many markets? 200? 300? In addition to the syndication fee, King sells its own advertising on Jeapardy (in other words, the local stations can't sell every spot, King gets some of them). This means that a show like Jeapardy, in as many markets as it is in, is a GIGANTIC success and does not need record setting ratings to succeed. It will run until King decides not to produce it any longer. AFHV has virtually no production costs at all, except for the studio time, the host's salary, staff to review and edit video, and the lousy ten grand they offer to the winners. So comparing it to Jim[/] is the height of stupidity because the production costs of a sit-com, including 'star' salaries and writers probably means that with similar ratings, AFHV makes the network something on the order of 2-3 times as much profit.

Thanks for the link! I found Yusef's "disclaimer" interesting: I don't know Yusef's music as well as I might, is that name he gives it serious or just mumbo-jumbo meant as an alternative to "jazz"?

I honestly wonder if you know anything at all about television. According to MSNBC, last week's premiere was seen by a record 37.3 million people, representing a five percent INCREASE over last year's record. How do back-to-back record ratings constitute "tapering off"? America's Funniest Home Videos remains in production with a new host, who has been on the show for at least a couple of seasons. IIRC, the show was cancelled after a season or two with Daisy Fuentes as co-host with some knob, but was brought back. It runs Sundays and sometimes Fridays, and tonites episode info gives January 21, 2007 as the first air date. So obviously that show remains a success. Your last comment may or may not be accurate, since it puts two things TV values most at loggerheads: stay young vs don't fuck with a good thing. But you don't know squat about the other things you state so assuredly.

It will happen. The show is way over exposed now. Between all the clips being played 24/7, syndication, and whatever else they have going on, it will go the way of "Fear Factor" some day soon. I remember there was a time you couldn't go a day without people talking about "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?", and now? I'll put money on at least one of the following two things happening by the end of the 2009 season: a) a drop in audience of 33% or greater; b) a cast shakeup that results in the departure of at least 2 of the 4 personalities (my guess is Seacrest and Abdul, although there's an outside shot that Cowell will expire before either of them leave, smothered in his own milquetoast). If you're offering a wager, I'll take that bet on A). B) is foolish. Seacrest wants to be the biggest radio name in history. His idol is Dick Clark. If you think he'd leave the biggest program on the planet, you're nuts. As far as Paula goes, where else is she going to make this kind of money? No one has rushed in to offer her a record deal. She'll stay and there is no reason for the producers to fire her. The only way that this program goes off the air is if Idol winners start to fail to launch recording careers, one after the other. Only if "America" chooses people that can't succeed in today's pop music market will this show go off the air. It will last through at least the first (third) Clinton administration.

It will happen. The show is way over exposed now. Between all the clips being played 24/7, syndication, and whatever else they have going on, it will go the way of "Fear Factor" some day soon. I remember there was a time you couldn't go a day without people talking about "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?", and now? That show died of overexposure, three or four episodes per week for wont of anything else ABC could put on the air and get anyone to watch. Idol has a single, short season per year. Repackaging shows for syndication won't effect public interest the way ABC bled Millionaire into oblivion.

That's it. The pipe is huge and squared off: Thanks, now I can safely pass it by.

I stumbled across this and I am wondering if anyone knows anything about it. Even my favorite Dizzy expert, Lon, wasn't sure what this might be. Any help is greatly appreciated.

I dunno, a move like this (MORE ANGUISH!! MORE PAIN!! MORE UNFUNNY AND NOT-AT-ALL WITTY REMARKS FROM SIMON!!!) strikes me as a Hail Mary kind of move, a sign that the producers see the writing on the wall and are going with shock value to try and keep the ratings up. Of course, I don't follow the show or its ratings, so it's possible I have no idea what I'm talking about. Even likely. The ratings were bigger than ever before, and that happened before anyone could notice/be aware of MORE ANGUISH! MORE PAIN!!

Chris' point about Paula is certainly accurate, but at the same time, its pretty obvious why she was chosen. They wanted someone to be the opposite of Simon. Paula fits that to a "t" even if her qualifications are questionable in the extreme. Speaking of qualifications, can anyone tell me when Randy Jackson played bass in Journey? I'm having a hard time imagining that so I wonder if it was before or long after their fifteen minutes. And as for seeing this show tank, I cannot imagine when that may happen. Every single year it pulls better numbers than the last. Got only knows when or even if people will grow tired of it.

The Yanks were never interested in Laroche, as far as I know. Their target was always getting Gonzales. As far as Melky goes, if they don't pick up Abreu's option, the Yanks will need a new outfielder after this year. As for Andruw, to me, the fact that he pushed Boras aside and took a below market deal once, and now says that he wants to stay, says that he'll take a reasonable offer from the Braves to stay. I'd love to see him taking aim at the Monster but I suspect he'll end up staying.

I don't know why you think this page shows that WJ's statistics belong with today's Rangers. For one thing, according to his ESPN stats page, Johnson threw two no-hitters in his career, yet they aren't listed under Rangers pitchers who threw no-hitters. That would be because Johnson's Senators became today's Twins, where Johnson holds just about every team record. Since it shows the 1961 Senators as part the the Rangers history, if you keep going down, you'll eventually reach the years for Johnson -- in theory, at least. But, either way, those old Senator are like the St. Louis Browns, long gone, alive in memory and history books. But it stops with the 1961 Twins. I had no further to scroll on my page, and no second page, so I don't understand how you can "reach the years for Johnson". In fact, the Twins page on ESPN shows the 1960 Senators and then the Twins from there forward. I'm not real strong on this aspect of baseball history, but obviously baseball did not want to leave Washington, so when the original Senators left after the 1960 season for Minnesota, the "new" Senators took over in 1961. The old Senators took their history to Minnesota which is why WJ is in their record books.

That would be incorrect, sir. Is this a fairly recent development? Because I seem to remember Kaat & Blyleven being listed as "team record holders" for a while back in the day. And that just didn't seem right. I don't know. I consider baseball-reference.com to be the online equivalent of the Baseball Encyclopedia, but I've never gone looking at Twins record holders.

There was an interesting piece on MSNBC.com from an Idol auditioner. Basically, her description of the process was that if you had an outrageous costume or a weird look about you, you were picked out by the producers. They know what they are looking for in these shows. But for the great unwashed masses, There were 12 different sets of audition judges (an individual person) and apparently they themselves had authority to give out those "gold tickets", without even being sent through to Simon and the gang for final approval. That may have a lot to do with why we hardly saw "winning" auditions this week - only the bad and the ugly and a few of the good were sent in front of the cameras. The rest of the "good" got through and haven't even seen the Gang of Three yet.

I'm the opposite - like a continuous loop of can't-look-away car crashes, you can't pull me away from these episodes, and I can take or leave the subsequent episodes as they come, with my interest often determined by who the musical guest is or what the musical genre may be. As far as self-delusion goes, I'll bet that a surprising number of people are fully aware that they can't sing and are only looking for their fifteen minutes of fame. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who are put through to Simon et al who can kinda sorta sing but aren't good enough. They are mediocre, in fact, but they do get that chance. I think there have been quite a few singers shown this week who weren't wince-inducing, but they didn't get through (for instance, the secretary who Simon and Randy kept implying had a "thing" going on with her boss who paid for her trip).

I don't know why you think this page shows that WJ's statistics belong with today's Rangers. For one thing, according to his ESPN stats page, Johnson threw two no-hitters in his career, yet they aren't listed under Rangers pitchers who threw no-hitters. That would be because Johnson's Senators became today's Twins, where Johnson holds just about every team record.

That would be incorrect, sir.

That trade was originally reported (about a month ago) as being a three way with the Yankees. Since as you say you have three closers now, isn't it possible you'll flip Gonzales for Melky Cabrera? Would help (excellent arm for the pen) and hurt (no Melky, Bernie becomes the fourth outfielder) the Yanks, seems to me. I know your GM hates Boras with a passion, and the Braves can never win a bidding war, but Andruw was quoted today as saying he very much wants to finish his career in Atlanta. Is he the type of guy to accept a below-market offer?

The Sweet Baby Blues Band made a lot of fun records. RIP.

Do we even know if these are complete performances or Bird solos only? If I were the seller I'd give more details or else use an image hoster to show more of the backs of these tape boxes.

Probably a lot like Ernie Henry - potential; a uniqueness about his playing. The more interesting question is what modern jazz would sound like if he had stopped in 1956.

Who wouldn't? Might have to rethink the price. If the promotion is too popular, supply may become an issue.