Hulu: Free (but limited)
Hulu Plus: $7.99
Netflix: $7.99
Amazon: a la carte
Amazon Prime: $8.33 ($99.99 yearly, includes Prime Music, Kindle Owners Lending Library, and free 2nd day shipping on Prime merchandise)
Last edited by Paulie; 10-24-2014 at 11:18 AM.
"That gum you like is going to come back in style."
Word to the wise: Hulu Plus is NOT commercial free. Dropped them after my free trial period ended.
"That gum you like is going to come back in style."
A decades-long culture has grown up around it, but "television" (the hardware, the networks and the distribution, the programming schedules) was just a delivery system for content. Unlike the case in music, the TV content isn't going anywhere (if anything, there will continue to be more of it); however, like the case in music, the days of water cooler topics are on the wane, because the nightly audience is getting split dozens of ways instead of three.
Content will get new delivery systems as technology changes. TV as we know it will probably be gone in 10-15 years. Google is already positioning itself for the next round of NFL broadcast bidding, and that will really change everything.
While the English Premier League is on NBC Sports I'm pretty much tied to that service.
Ian
Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/
Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
I blame Wynton, what was the question?
There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.
Your solution to that is to move to the Pacific Time Zone, where Thursday Night Football runs from 5:30 to 8:30, followed by 3 hours of crap before Letterman starts. (Apparently network TV has given up on Thursday nights, because there is fuck all to watch). If football runs over, you aren't missing anything, and Letterman is never pre-empted. Last night they announced during football that Thursday Night Football is moving to the NFL network, so I won't see it anymore. I guess the games they showed, up until last night, on network TV were just a tease. So now cable owns Monday Night Football and Thursday Night Football. But on Sundays, there is football from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., for people who don't have a life, and/or can stand to be bored for 10 hours. If I watch on Sunday at all, I just choose one game that I think will be a good match up. That's more than enough for me, because, as you said:Originally Posted by GuitarGeek
Besides, I like baseball better than football. And every year, network TV shows less and less Major League Baseball. Because I live within the fan zone of the Bay Area, we used to be treated to the occasional Giants or A's game on TV. Now, the A's games can only be seen on cable, and we get maybe a half dozen Giants home games during the course of the season. You would think networks might show the playoffs, especially since the Giants, A's and Angels all made it to the post season. But no. We could watch no division series games on network, and only one League Championship Series game (the first Giants-Cardinals NLCS game). All they show on network is the World Series. I'm waiting for cable to take that away from us, too. Hockey is no better on network TV. They show 3 or 4 random games during the season, then skip the playoffs and go straight to the Stanley Cup. Sports fandom and network TV are rapidly becoming mutually exclusive.Originally Posted by GuitarGeek
We're trying to build a monument to show that we were here
It won't be visible through the air
And there won't be any shade to cool the monument to prove that we were here. - Gene Parsons, 1973
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Great article. Thanks for sharing.
There were lots of interesting points brought up throughout, and a change is coming soon. I know some on this thread are bitching about trivial things, but my main comment is that the main cable providers have relied way too long on their bundles and what's essentially a monopoly. I know this is my primary issue is that I cannot justify a $200+ "bundle" bill for cable/internet that makes you pay for their set top boxes, DVRs, modems, etc. on a monthly basis.
This is especially silly in 2014 as the cable is all fiber optic/IP based. The fact that I can download their app on my iPad and watch TV from that device makes paying for all those boxes monthly a borderline scam.
Anyway, I bought a Smart TV for the bedroom and love that I can access Netflix, YouTube, whatever and find myself struggling to justify full cable bills. I will likely eventually go with a setup similar to Paulie where I get an "over the air" package for primary channels and just buy streaming services for the rest.
I found that one of the best analogies to music was how they compared the abandoning of albums for the song with the abandoning of channels for the shows. People were/are subscribing to HBO to get the few major shows they want to see and not as much for the 100s of movies they play ad nauseum over 10 channels.
WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.
One thing I don't get is the streaming of media over mobile devices. I want to watch on the biggest screen possible, not a 5" smartphone. I can't imagine a scenario where I would ever watch a TV show or movie over my phone or tablet. I can see streaming it over my device while it's connected to my TV (which I currently do with my laptop via an HDMI cable), but I have no desire to actually watch on my phone or tablet.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
True, but there are two things to keep in mind. First, the vast majority of the people on this website don't fit the demographic that grew up with smartphones and tablets. Second, it's about convenience and portability.
Think about it, almost the same exact comment you're making about TV is the same most people made about MP3s and iPods. While some are still adamantly against it, many have adapted and even embraced it.
People want control on what, where, when, and how they watch or listen to something, especially today's youth. At least if you get a smart TV, you can enjoy streaming services in fairly good quality on the device of your choice.
WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.
All things must change but not always for the better.
Convenience, I get. Portability, not so much.
Music and books on tape, etc. are different, though. You can listen to these when you're in the car, at the gym, etc. But you can't really watch TV or movies in those instances (though people seem to do anything but drive when they're behind the wheel now ).
Right - I get this. I don't like the networks dictating to me what and when I'm going to watch something, and they can go to hell with their commercials - especially as we get closer to election day. And I think smart TVs, etc. are a great innovation. I just have no desire to watch something on a 5-inch screen, and don't understand why anyone would.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Ian
Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/
Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
I blame Wynton, what was the question?
There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.
Not all parts of the country have fiber optic service available. Maybe by the time it arrives here, there will be customizable TV, where you can choose the shows you want to watch when you want to see them, and not be forced to pay for channels you don't want.Originally Posted by Poisoned Youth
We're trying to build a monument to show that we were here
It won't be visible through the air
And there won't be any shade to cool the monument to prove that we were here. - Gene Parsons, 1973
I got to where I was watching nothing but sports and couldn't justify paying around $100 a month for a bunch of stuff I never watched. The cable companies are going to have to give, because more and more people are going to come to the same conclusion. I haven't watched TV in about two years, and I actually don't miss it at all.
Our rural telephone coop is also our cable and internet provider. They're converting all these small towns from cable to fiber optic. Can't wait to jump from 8.5mbs to infinity.
I gave up on Hulu after a trial. My wife watches a ton of movies on Netflix, mostly horror. Or we binge on a series. We did each season of House of Cards in a weekend. Amazon Prime and HBO pick up the slack for mainstream movies. And like a lot of you, the DVR is essential. We just caught up on this season's American Horror Story (what sick fucks write this show?) and are slowly working through that Roosevelt series from PBS.Hulu: Free (but limited)
Hulu Plus: $7.99
Netflix: $7.99
Amazon: a la carte
Amazon Prime: $8.33 ($99.99 yearly, includes Prime Music, Kindle Owners Lending Library, and free 2nd day shipping on Prime merchandise
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
If I have a misunderstanding of what "water cooler shows" are, then I'll retract, but I've never heard the phrase except in the case of the most popular shows on television. Seinfeld, Cheers, Friends, MASH - they were the obvious ones, and any show in its peak rating years that hit an audience close to what those other shows routinely would. So I'd expect that to be around 25-30 million viewers per episode, at a bare minimum. So, in its heyday, The Simpsons was a water cooler show. So was the Cosby Show.
By comparison: the Seinfeld finale had 76 million viewers. Breaking Bad's got 10 million. In the '80s and '90s, a rating below 10 was so bad it would get a show canceled. Typical viewing for an episode of Breaking Bad in its final (and by far its most popular) half-season was between 4 and 5 million. In first half-season of the finale, it was between a 2 and 3. In terms of ratings, those "water cooler" numbers, they're blips. Breaking Bad had a small but dedicated audience, but hardly anybody watched it. If the retort is "well, Breaking Bad was popular for a cable show," then viola - my point is made. We don't have water cooler shows any more, because the audience is splintered among many programming options.
Last edited by Facelift; 10-24-2014 at 02:47 PM.
I think the ratings for shows like Breaking Bad and such are a bit deceiving. I concede that nothing is like the watercooler shows of yore. But there are many many people that stream or torrent these shows, binge watching entire seasons or more in a few days. That doesn't do much for the conversations in cubicle hell unless it's:
Cubicle Denizen #1 "Dude, we just watched all of Breaking Bad. Omigod!"
Cubicle Denizen #2 "I told you it was awesome. Meet me and #3 in the cafeteria. She finished it last week. We can all break it down."
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
Exactly.
A "water cooler show" is one that people talk about...y'know....at the water cooler. At work, etc.
And, like music, ratings now can't be compared to ratings before Netflix/On Demand/Streaming/etc. Binge-watching has changed the dynamic, but ratings systems haven't caught up.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
People talk about any show. The term "water cooler show" came about for the most popular shows, because everybody was talking about them - people across different ages, sexes, ethnicities. It's a total joke to call Breaking Bad a water cooler show. Hardly anybody watched it. EVERY prime time network show in 1986, for example, had higher average ratings than the highest-rated Breaking Bad episode (the finale). Were they all water cooler shows? The (very) short lived "The New Mike Hammer" had ratings that tripled that of Breaking Bad's final season. Was that a water cooler show?
Last edited by Facelift; 10-24-2014 at 03:41 PM.
We must frequent different water coolers, then. Just about everyone I know talked about it constantly. I haven't watched it yet, and I feel like I know everything about it. They even talked about it on the local sports talk radio.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Variety disagrees with you, too, Facelift, using words like "soaring ratings," "megahit," and "meteoric ratings."
So, no, not the ratings of MASH or Seinfeld, but for their time, Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead had far from "small, niche audiences" and "nobody watched it."
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Bookmarks