Last night I had the pleasure of attending the final dress rehearsal for Palo Alto's Theatre Works' performance of Into the Woods. It was a thoroughly professional, impressive, and magical performance and if you're in (or can get to) the Bay Area, I urge you to get tickets for it right now.
Let it be known up front that I'm a huge fan of Into the Woods. I own the CD and DVD, I've accompanied many a singer with ITW pieces for auditions, and I've previously attended a live production of the show (albeit not on Broadway).
Therefore, as you might imagine, I attended this performance at Theatre Works with an eager but cautious mindset. Not only was it a dress rehearsal (not even a preview, much less an actual paid-for performance), but this was also "regional theatre." As someone who has done regional theatre in the past, not to mention attended a ton of regional theatre performances, I've come to temper my expectations to prepare myself for oft-lackluster albeit sincere and enthusiastic orchestras, costuming, choreography, singing, and so on.
Boy, was I in for a surprise with this show, which was pretty much professional caliber! I should have gotten a hint early on when, in perusing my program, I noticed that the bulk of the actors are members of the Actors' Equity Association... folks *serious* about theatre.
* * *
I barely noticed the orchestra except when concentrating on them -- which, for a musical, is how it should be IMHO (and mind you, I was an orchestra conductor for a regional theatre once upon a time :-D). The balance within the orchestra and between the orchestra and cast was admirable, as was its connection with the singers in tempo and feel.
The lighting, costuming, and -- wow! -- the sets... all fantastic. In fact, after seeing the Broadway production on DVD, I was particularly floored at how much was done here with the sets... engaging but not obtrusive or distracting. Plus, a live "cow" -- very different than the original production, but a clever (and oft-hilarious) touch!
Okay, Adam, but how about the ACTING AND SINGING, eh?
Well, I was quite impressed there, too. In particular, I found that the princes -- while certainly assisted by the humorous book -- were especially adept at their comedic roles. The Baker's Wife was another standout, IMHO... with a fabulous ability to provoke sympathy, laughter, indignation... the whole spectrum. In general, the entire cast showcased strong acting and singing talents, though I was a bit less impressed with the singing abilities of Jack's mom.
Additionally, I did feel that the witch was slightly less proficient at enunciating than other leads, and -- when comparing her to the distinctive (original witch) Bernadette Peters -- her acting and singing dynamics seem a tiny bit dwarfed.
And speaking of enunciation issues: while my friends (who weren't familiar with the musical) and I found the lyrics to be sung generally cleanly and clearly overall, I did feel that some of the ensemble numbers (actually few and far between in this musical) were a bit muddled... likely due to mic/balance issues (quite possibly to be cured by actual performance time), but also possibly due in part to a lack of exactness/sharpness/togetherness in enunciation. More critically, I was unable to understand almost anything boomed by the giant.
Aside from the above issues concerning spoken/sung clarity, I do have a few of other nitpicks:
- Jack's Mother's ear-pulling grew annoying in its repetitiveness.
- Ditto for the witches 'pain boom' or whatever it's officially called. Additionally, this was the only special effect I can recall that felt hokey in the production, and is one of those things that likely would have been more powerful without any visible effects at all.
- I'd like to see a bit more expressiveness and depth from the narrator. The narrator of this production is certainly fine, but seems to lack some of the gravity and punch of the one I had grown used to in the professional recordings.
* * *
A warning to prospective attendees: This show is long (around 3 hours, including a brief intermission). It's also *NOT* for young children. Yes, it involves fairy tales. No, there's no blood or foul language or explicit sexuality. But it tackles very adult themes... love, death, fidelity, morality, loneliness, parenting, and so on, and in a way that often requires concerted listening and patience.
This show, however, is a wonderful affair for the rest of us. While not providing a Disney'esque happy ending, it should deftly entertain, amuse, and charm anyone with heart. No live helicopters, no Elton John ballads... just an intricate, thoughtful, and engaging book and score -- and thankfully a cast and crew that does the work justice.
Bring tissues, and bring a friend. This is a show you'll feel good about loving :-).
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
ShareThis
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Miscellanous Musings 'bout Musicals (mmmm!)
Lots of you probably know I'm a techno-geek. But did you know I'm a music 'n' theatre-obsessed geek?
Well, I have lots... LOTS... on my mind about theatre stuff, but for now I'll just subject you to some random musings. Hope you don't mind.
Magic in musicals
I believe the very best musicals are MAGICAL. An audience with mouths wide open, no concept of time elapsed... an experience that makes you really think or dream or wonder or desire long after the curtains go down. Singing in the Rain is magical. Little Shop of Horrors is magical. Though it wasn't quite my taste, Les Miz is magical.
Breaking of the third wall
It may have been cute once, but I'm getting sick of musicals constantly referencing the audience. It's okay to have a narrator (I think this works in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, for instance), and it can be fun to involve the audience in some ways interactively (as in The Mystery of Edwin Drood). But snide remarks about ticket prices, frequent comedic asides or jarring pleas to the audience and so on... this all reminds me that... damn, I *have* paid $90 for this artificial experience. It's not real. It's almost akin to having a serious TV movie broken up by commercials (wow, way to break the mood).
I'm forking over hard-earned cash because I want to escape from reality for a bit. Quit the jarring reminders that I'm sitting in a not-so-comfy chair in the nosebleed section, okay? It's not nice, and it's not particularly funny either.
And speaking about prices...
$100+ to see a musical on Broadway. I'd like to know where that money is going. How much to the performers?... and not just the big-name stars, either! How much to the orchestra folks? The choreographer? I sincerely hope the actual ARTISTS (not just business managers) are making the bulk of this cash.
Still, even if that's the case, it's making me sad to see ticket prices so high. Heck, I've noticed even community theatre productions are selling tickets for as high as $53 a seat!
Thankfully there are ways to save a lot of money on tickets!
Here are a few tips:
See the musical or listen to it first?
I'm still trying to figure out what's best. A few times, I've become so familiar with the score of a musical before seeing it, that I find myself either somewhat bored during the show or disappointed that the performers don't sound like the folks I've grown comfortable hearing sing the musical.
On the other hand, I know that it's sometimes very helpful and enjoyable to have a better understanding of the plot AND the lyrics before seeing a show live.
A little-known secret to upgrade your theatre seat at no extra cost
At a recent show I attended in New York (Dirty Rotten Scoundrels), I was initially saddened that my half-price ticket was for a seat in the VERY back of the theatre... until I saw a neighbor grab a comfy seat pillow and instantly become 4 inches taller. I'm guessing that this isn't an appropriate option for those NOT in a back row, but let me tell you, using such a pillow myself improved my appreciation of the show immensely... not only due to my improved height, but my happier bottom :-)
Theatre as a solitary affair
At the above-mentioned New York theatre trip, I ended up seeing the musical all by myself. Er, no, it wasn't a private one-person showing, but rather, this was the first time I had attended a musical alone. It was a bit sad and disconcerting, frankly, and I don't think I'll do it again. There's something about having a friend or family member or date or significant other next to you, even without any words shared during the show; it's hard to describe, but I now realize just how comforting it is!
You paid $100 and you're walking out before the show is over?
I'll never understand why people pay such money to see shows on Broadway and then hustle towards the exits WHILE THE ORCHESTRA IS STILL PLAYING. Whether they don't consider the orchestra to be part of the show or they're so eager to be first out the door, it makes no difference in my mind. It just seems like moronic, disrespectful behavior.
What's with the standing ovations for EVERY fricking show?!
Colleges have grade inflation, theatres have ovation inflation. Both, IMHO, are equally annoying and regrettable.
When a name just isn't worth it
John Lithgow, I'm sorry, but you're not a singer. You can't even cleanly hit an 'F' above middle C. Please step aside and let actual singers take your role.
Then again, the public seems to be so name-obsessed (in movies, music, everything... gah!) that talent is subordinate. How regrettable.
Sure, I love some of the 'big names' (Nathan Lane is a hell of a lot of fun and he CAN sing. Same for Norbert Leo Butz... though if I were him, I'd have gotten a name change eons ago). But it'd sure be nice to have musicals marketed based more upon their book and such, rather than what big name star happens to be coming or going.
Why aren't William Finn's musicals more popular?
I know, I know... he writes about gay people and brain tumors and other non-traditional issues. But his musicals have so much HEART in them! Luckily, though, his Spelling Bee musical has caught on like wildfire... so it seems that he's finally getting his due. Then again, outside of New York, just how many people HAVE heard of The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee? Ah, if only the world of musicals got as much press and play (no pun intended) as the over-inflated world of bubblegum pop.
I guess that's about as likely as high school arts programs getting as much support and funding as athletic programs. Oh well. I can dream, right?
Well, I have lots... LOTS... on my mind about theatre stuff, but for now I'll just subject you to some random musings. Hope you don't mind.
Magic in musicals
I believe the very best musicals are MAGICAL. An audience with mouths wide open, no concept of time elapsed... an experience that makes you really think or dream or wonder or desire long after the curtains go down. Singing in the Rain is magical. Little Shop of Horrors is magical. Though it wasn't quite my taste, Les Miz is magical.
Breaking of the third wall
It may have been cute once, but I'm getting sick of musicals constantly referencing the audience. It's okay to have a narrator (I think this works in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, for instance), and it can be fun to involve the audience in some ways interactively (as in The Mystery of Edwin Drood). But snide remarks about ticket prices, frequent comedic asides or jarring pleas to the audience and so on... this all reminds me that... damn, I *have* paid $90 for this artificial experience. It's not real. It's almost akin to having a serious TV movie broken up by commercials (wow, way to break the mood).
I'm forking over hard-earned cash because I want to escape from reality for a bit. Quit the jarring reminders that I'm sitting in a not-so-comfy chair in the nosebleed section, okay? It's not nice, and it's not particularly funny either.
And speaking about prices...
$100+ to see a musical on Broadway. I'd like to know where that money is going. How much to the performers?... and not just the big-name stars, either! How much to the orchestra folks? The choreographer? I sincerely hope the actual ARTISTS (not just business managers) are making the bulk of this cash.
Still, even if that's the case, it's making me sad to see ticket prices so high. Heck, I've noticed even community theatre productions are selling tickets for as high as $53 a seat!
Thankfully there are ways to save a lot of money on tickets!
Here are a few tips:
- In New York City and I think a few other cities, if you don't mind seeing a show that's been running for 6+ months, get half price tickets at the TKTS booths either the day of or day before.
- Offer to usher!
- See if theatres offer free open seating for previews or dress rehearsals. For instance, I'm going tonight with friends to see Into the Woods for FREE from the very talented Theatre Works group in Palo Alto. Tickets are normally $40-$53 each!
- If you're in the Bay Area, sign up for the Artsopolis newsletter. Sort of like the airline weekend Internet specials, Artsopolis sends out a newsletter each Thursday with ~40%-off deals for lots of great local performances!
- Scan Craigslist.
See the musical or listen to it first?
I'm still trying to figure out what's best. A few times, I've become so familiar with the score of a musical before seeing it, that I find myself either somewhat bored during the show or disappointed that the performers don't sound like the folks I've grown comfortable hearing sing the musical.
On the other hand, I know that it's sometimes very helpful and enjoyable to have a better understanding of the plot AND the lyrics before seeing a show live.
A little-known secret to upgrade your theatre seat at no extra cost
At a recent show I attended in New York (Dirty Rotten Scoundrels), I was initially saddened that my half-price ticket was for a seat in the VERY back of the theatre... until I saw a neighbor grab a comfy seat pillow and instantly become 4 inches taller. I'm guessing that this isn't an appropriate option for those NOT in a back row, but let me tell you, using such a pillow myself improved my appreciation of the show immensely... not only due to my improved height, but my happier bottom :-)
Theatre as a solitary affair
At the above-mentioned New York theatre trip, I ended up seeing the musical all by myself. Er, no, it wasn't a private one-person showing, but rather, this was the first time I had attended a musical alone. It was a bit sad and disconcerting, frankly, and I don't think I'll do it again. There's something about having a friend or family member or date or significant other next to you, even without any words shared during the show; it's hard to describe, but I now realize just how comforting it is!
You paid $100 and you're walking out before the show is over?
I'll never understand why people pay such money to see shows on Broadway and then hustle towards the exits WHILE THE ORCHESTRA IS STILL PLAYING. Whether they don't consider the orchestra to be part of the show or they're so eager to be first out the door, it makes no difference in my mind. It just seems like moronic, disrespectful behavior.
What's with the standing ovations for EVERY fricking show?!
Colleges have grade inflation, theatres have ovation inflation. Both, IMHO, are equally annoying and regrettable.
When a name just isn't worth it
John Lithgow, I'm sorry, but you're not a singer. You can't even cleanly hit an 'F' above middle C. Please step aside and let actual singers take your role.
Then again, the public seems to be so name-obsessed (in movies, music, everything... gah!) that talent is subordinate. How regrettable.
Sure, I love some of the 'big names' (Nathan Lane is a hell of a lot of fun and he CAN sing. Same for Norbert Leo Butz... though if I were him, I'd have gotten a name change eons ago). But it'd sure be nice to have musicals marketed based more upon their book and such, rather than what big name star happens to be coming or going.
Why aren't William Finn's musicals more popular?
I know, I know... he writes about gay people and brain tumors and other non-traditional issues. But his musicals have so much HEART in them! Luckily, though, his Spelling Bee musical has caught on like wildfire... so it seems that he's finally getting his due. Then again, outside of New York, just how many people HAVE heard of The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee? Ah, if only the world of musicals got as much press and play (no pun intended) as the over-inflated world of bubblegum pop.
I guess that's about as likely as high school arts programs getting as much support and funding as athletic programs. Oh well. I can dream, right?
Monday, November 28, 2005
Fun music clip - Aunt Sue's Ant Soup
After all the serious posts about geek stuff, I figured it was time to throw in a bit of levity again. So here's a sample I've lovingly clipped from The Blender's "Aunt Sue's Ant Soup."
UPDATE: Gah, Grooveshark seems to be having problems with this clip; you can listen to it with one click here on Napster, though there may be geographic restrictions on this :(
Here's a bit about this song and the group behind it... plus -- I know you're craving this -- the full lyrics I insanely transcribed in a fit of insomnia last night.
The Blenders a cappella group - not to be confused with The Blenders of oldies fame -- is a deliciously versatile, sometimes-wacky, always harmonious group that is just damn infectious.
Sadly, on The Blenders' own Web site (warning: music autoplays), they only feature clips from their Christmas tunes... fine enough in their own right, but their repetoire is so much deeper! :-)
Love a cappella... or curious and want to discover more from this genre? Check out these other links!
- Primarily a cappella: comprehensive catalog, nice folks!
- Contemporary A cappella Society: Amazingly deep and cool info.
- Another song by the Blenders (ack, I forgot I had already profiled this group... but oh well, too late to turn back now! I promise to highlight other a cappella groups soon :-)
- A gorgeous tune sung by the amazingly talented Swingle Singers
* * *
And now, for the Aunt Sue's Aunt Soup lyrics!
Oh! Just realized...
Today is the second Sunday of July.
And that can only mean one thing:
M' family is expectin' me for supper at Aunt Sue's
I love... she's quite... a ding-a-ling
{8 bar interlude}
I wonder what concoction she'll whip up for us. {throat clear}
Maybe some furball stew.
Nothing could compare to last year's lovely little dish.
When we all ate Aunt Sue's Ant Soup. {scream}
She's got lots of charm.
She's drainin' the ant farm.
The neighborhood and sex {panting}
Have plenty of reason to be alarmed.
{Sung/chanted}
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's!
{8 bars of Vocal Trumpet solo}
The bride of the broth,
The Queen of the crock,
I ain't foolin' ya
She loves that bouillon.
Dad says that her mind is on vacation.
She does it with taste.
Nothing goes to waste.
There's critters and hair
All over the place,
Resulting in a lack of sanitation.
{Spoken by father} Is that it?
{Spoken by boy} No!
{Spoken by father} Oh.
{4 bars of trumpet solo}
Today is the second Sunday of July,
That can only mean one thing.
Family's expecting me for supper at Aunt Sue's.
I love... she's quite... (a ding-a-ling)
{Spoken by Aunt Sue} Have some more darling!
She's got lots of charm.
She's drainin' the ant farm.
The neighborhood and sex
Have plenty of reason to be alarmed {panting} {spoken} you know what I mean?
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
{Spoken by boy} Hey Aunt Sue, where's your little dog Ginger?
{Spoken by Aunt Sue} Oh, the little feller adds spice to every meal!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
{Spoken by boy} Hey Aunt Sue, where's Uncle Stu?
{Spoken by Aunt Sue} Oh, he's cooking... something.
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's!
{Scratchy album vintage feel}
She's such a sweetie
But... still kind of greasy
She's my... Aunt... Sue.......... {soft chuckle}
[breath]
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.
{/Scratchy}
We really mean it.
{Stripper feel}
My... Aunt... Sue... Aunt... Sue
[Big ending] Oh yeaaaaaahh
{/stripper feel}
{Rapidfire a cappella medley /}
{goofy voice}
That's blendertaaaaaainment!
{/goofy voice}
* * *
Edited at 4:24pm PST to add:
Want to hear more of The Blenders?
You can catch their stuff on the following online music networks:
- iTunes Music Service, Napster, Rhapsody, lala - Lots of their tracks!
- Yahoo Music Unlimited and Virgin Digital - A few of their tracks
Edited on 12/23/05 to add:
Thanks to my aca friend Tat Tong for deciphering the "little feller" line of the lyrics tonight :-)
Edited on 11/9/09:
- Fixed some links
- Made minor lyrics / content corrections
UPDATE: Gah, Grooveshark seems to be having problems with this clip; you can listen to it with one click here on Napster, though there may be geographic restrictions on this :(
Here's a bit about this song and the group behind it... plus -- I know you're craving this -- the full lyrics I insanely transcribed in a fit of insomnia last night.
The Blenders a cappella group - not to be confused with The Blenders of oldies fame -- is a deliciously versatile, sometimes-wacky, always harmonious group that is just damn infectious.
Sadly, on The Blenders' own Web site (warning: music autoplays), they only feature clips from their Christmas tunes... fine enough in their own right, but their repetoire is so much deeper! :-)
Love a cappella... or curious and want to discover more from this genre? Check out these other links!
- Primarily a cappella: comprehensive catalog, nice folks!
- Contemporary A cappella Society: Amazingly deep and cool info.
- Another song by the Blenders (ack, I forgot I had already profiled this group... but oh well, too late to turn back now! I promise to highlight other a cappella groups soon :-)
- A gorgeous tune sung by the amazingly talented Swingle Singers
* * *
And now, for the Aunt Sue's Aunt Soup lyrics!
Oh! Just realized...
Today is the second Sunday of July.
And that can only mean one thing:
M' family is expectin' me for supper at Aunt Sue's
I love... she's quite... a ding-a-ling
{8 bar interlude}
I wonder what concoction she'll whip up for us. {throat clear}
Maybe some furball stew.
Nothing could compare to last year's lovely little dish.
When we all ate Aunt Sue's Ant Soup. {scream}
She's got lots of charm.
She's drainin' the ant farm.
The neighborhood and sex {panting}
Have plenty of reason to be alarmed.
{Sung/chanted}
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's!
{8 bars of Vocal Trumpet solo}
The bride of the broth,
The Queen of the crock,
I ain't foolin' ya
She loves that bouillon.
Dad says that her mind is on vacation.
She does it with taste.
Nothing goes to waste.
There's critters and hair
All over the place,
Resulting in a lack of sanitation.
{Spoken by father} Is that it?
{Spoken by boy} No!
{Spoken by father} Oh.
{4 bars of trumpet solo}
Today is the second Sunday of July,
That can only mean one thing.
Family's expecting me for supper at Aunt Sue's.
I love... she's quite... (a ding-a-ling)
{Spoken by Aunt Sue} Have some more darling!
She's got lots of charm.
She's drainin' the ant farm.
The neighborhood and sex
Have plenty of reason to be alarmed {panting} {spoken} you know what I mean?
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
{Spoken by boy} Hey Aunt Sue, where's your little dog Ginger?
{Spoken by Aunt Sue} Oh, the little feller adds spice to every meal!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
{Spoken by boy} Hey Aunt Sue, where's Uncle Stu?
{Spoken by Aunt Sue} Oh, he's cooking... something.
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's! Ant soup!
Aunt Sue's!
{Scratchy album vintage feel}
She's such a sweetie
But... still kind of greasy
She's my... Aunt... Sue.......... {soft chuckle}
[breath]
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.
{/Scratchy}
We really mean it.
{Stripper feel}
My... Aunt... Sue... Aunt... Sue
[Big ending] Oh yeaaaaaahh
{/stripper feel}
{Rapidfire a cappella medley /}
{goofy voice}
That's blendertaaaaaainment!
{/goofy voice}
* * *
Edited at 4:24pm PST to add:
Want to hear more of The Blenders?
You can catch their stuff on the following online music networks:
- iTunes Music Service, Napster, Rhapsody, lala - Lots of their tracks!
Edited on 12/23/05 to add:
Thanks to my aca friend Tat Tong for deciphering the "little feller" line of the lyrics tonight :-)
Edited on 11/9/09:
- Fixed some links
- Made minor lyrics / content corrections
Sunday, November 27, 2005
I just figured out the search engines' next foray!
I know, I know, some of you are probably sick of me idly speculating on what Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft are going to do next, but I just had yet another vision that I wanted to share with you.
One of the search engines is going to build or buy a leading OCR and/or photo scanning software package.
Why?
Well, just do the plotline in your head. Google just built a system (Google Base) which -- if, perhaps rather inelegantly -- lets people add additional content in bulk for that search engine to slurp up.
Google and (separately) the Open Content Alliance are busy scanning the world's books.
So we have Web pages, music, images, scholarly research, books, and more being indexed... but what about all those zillions of papers folks have laying around? Like the ones I just set about scanning this evening to reduce some of the clutter around my desk.
What have I been scanning? A list of waltz moves, an e-mail directory, a memorable schedule of a recent dance camp I attended, and a funny article I wrote for my high school newspaper.
How much of this would the world be interested in? How much would I really WANT to share? Not all of it, to be sure.
But from older academic papers to newspaper clippings to home photos and more... there's a TON of information out there that's not digitized.
Not digitized yet, that is.
And interestingly enough, decent scanners (albeit not slide scanners) are pretty darn cheap ($50 or less, especially used ones on ebay). But really good OCR software? At least $150, from what I've gathered. Students, families, home-office professionals... I bet most of them have scanners. But I doubt most of them have OCR software.
Then again, perhaps the search engines could simply piggyback onto non-OCR scanning software and do the OCR on their supercomputers inhouse. Greater ability to iterate, do A|B testing on scan quality, etc., without depending upon users to update software.
* * *
Benefit to engines:
Benefit to consumers:
What are your thoughts on this?
1) How feasible do you think it is that one of the search engines will buy/build such a service?
2) Which search engine'd do this first?
3) How useful would it actually be to general consumers? Small business folks? Others?
One of the search engines is going to build or buy a leading OCR and/or photo scanning software package.
Why?
Well, just do the plotline in your head. Google just built a system (Google Base) which -- if, perhaps rather inelegantly -- lets people add additional content in bulk for that search engine to slurp up.
Google and (separately) the Open Content Alliance are busy scanning the world's books.
So we have Web pages, music, images, scholarly research, books, and more being indexed... but what about all those zillions of papers folks have laying around? Like the ones I just set about scanning this evening to reduce some of the clutter around my desk.
What have I been scanning? A list of waltz moves, an e-mail directory, a memorable schedule of a recent dance camp I attended, and a funny article I wrote for my high school newspaper.
How much of this would the world be interested in? How much would I really WANT to share? Not all of it, to be sure.
But from older academic papers to newspaper clippings to home photos and more... there's a TON of information out there that's not digitized.
Not digitized yet, that is.
And interestingly enough, decent scanners (albeit not slide scanners) are pretty darn cheap ($50 or less, especially used ones on ebay). But really good OCR software? At least $150, from what I've gathered. Students, families, home-office professionals... I bet most of them have scanners. But I doubt most of them have OCR software.
Then again, perhaps the search engines could simply piggyback onto non-OCR scanning software and do the OCR on their supercomputers inhouse. Greater ability to iterate, do A|B testing on scan quality, etc., without depending upon users to update software.
* * *
Benefit to engines:
- A huge database to improve NLP (natural language processing) algorithms... better understanding the interplay of text, graphs, photos, etc.
- Access to a ton of new content
- Further enticement to consumers to get onto their desktops (e.g., perhaps bundled in with Google Desktop or MSN Search or Yahoo-X1 search, etc.)
Benefit to consumers:
- Ability to archive documents and/or photos online with greater accuracy, and for less money (even free) for personal retrieval.
- Easier way to share not-yet-digitized documents with colleagues, using an OCR'd (much less bandwidth intensive) format
- Probably other stuff I'm overlooking
What are your thoughts on this?
1) How feasible do you think it is that one of the search engines will buy/build such a service?
2) Which search engine'd do this first?
3) How useful would it actually be to general consumers? Small business folks? Others?
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Click-to-call is the next big thing in Web advertising... but with a twist
I just read on Darren's Problogger.net site (via Threadwatch) that Google is testing out a pay-per-call feature in its AdWords program.
The way it works (so far in testing) is that Google places a little phone icon next to specific trial text ads where text AdWords ads are normally placed on the righthand side of Google search results pages.
When someone clicks on the phone icon, they get a call from Google and Google then connects them to the advertiser free of charge... of course, charging the advertiser an amount up to their max pay-per-call bid price.
IMHO, though, this is one layer away from being humungously useful to advertisers. As it's currently implemented, I think a lot of folks (like me!) would be apt to read the small text ad, click through to the site, and then decide whether to call the company from *there* or not.
And by that point, there's no easy way for the advertiser to know that I came via AdWords... which means that it's basically flying under the ROI radar. This may not seem like a horrible problem, but let me tell you... for some advertisers (like one of my clients, who spends over $150,000 a month on AdWords alone!), it's quite painful to wonder whether that cost-per-lead is unduly inflated because lots of customers are calling in their high-ticket orders rather than placing them on the company's Web site directly. With the latter, this client can see the conversions via Google's conversion tracker. With the former, the best the client can do is ask the purchaser "Where did you hear about us?" and 9 times out of 10, the person will say "Um, somewhere on the net" or maybe even "Google" but they'll hardly know whether they spotted this firm via a natural or AdWords listing!
* * *
So here's my idea: One of these companies... Google, Yahoo!, or Microsoft (with its Ad Center, not yet released in the U.S.) should implement a special javascript code that displays -- on the advertiser's site! -- a tailored-per-client toll-free number when the referrer is a ad-click from Google, Y! or Microsoft. If the visitor isn't from one of their respective PPC programs, then the javascript code would default to simply showing the company's own default toll-free number.
And one of the coolest things about this is that it'd be VERY hard to game or click-fraud. If the engine set, for instance, a minimum call length before charging (say, 15 seconds), you're not going to get random "calling farms" in India making 16 second calls, IMHO :-).
Of course, really cheap-ass companies participating in the program could say "Oh, hi! Let me quickly get your number and call you back..." but -- especially when high-ticket items or subscriptions are at stake -- I don't think such behavior is likely. The annoyance of that would likely offset too much potential revenue from customers.
* * *
From at a technical perspective, I think this would be pretty easy to do. I understand that there might be some referrer-acknowledgement issues (e.g., people surfing in high-paranoid mode with referrer stuff turned off), but on the whole, I can imagine that advertisers would be willing to pay a premium for a visit + call... and consumers would be well-served, too.
What are your thoughts on this? Am I missing a key problem here?
The way it works (so far in testing) is that Google places a little phone icon next to specific trial text ads where text AdWords ads are normally placed on the righthand side of Google search results pages.
When someone clicks on the phone icon, they get a call from Google and Google then connects them to the advertiser free of charge... of course, charging the advertiser an amount up to their max pay-per-call bid price.
IMHO, though, this is one layer away from being humungously useful to advertisers. As it's currently implemented, I think a lot of folks (like me!) would be apt to read the small text ad, click through to the site, and then decide whether to call the company from *there* or not.
And by that point, there's no easy way for the advertiser to know that I came via AdWords... which means that it's basically flying under the ROI radar. This may not seem like a horrible problem, but let me tell you... for some advertisers (like one of my clients, who spends over $150,000 a month on AdWords alone!), it's quite painful to wonder whether that cost-per-lead is unduly inflated because lots of customers are calling in their high-ticket orders rather than placing them on the company's Web site directly. With the latter, this client can see the conversions via Google's conversion tracker. With the former, the best the client can do is ask the purchaser "Where did you hear about us?" and 9 times out of 10, the person will say "Um, somewhere on the net" or maybe even "Google" but they'll hardly know whether they spotted this firm via a natural or AdWords listing!
* * *
So here's my idea: One of these companies... Google, Yahoo!, or Microsoft (with its Ad Center, not yet released in the U.S.) should implement a special javascript code that displays -- on the advertiser's site! -- a tailored-per-client toll-free number when the referrer is a ad-click from Google, Y! or Microsoft. If the visitor isn't from one of their respective PPC programs, then the javascript code would default to simply showing the company's own default toll-free number.
And one of the coolest things about this is that it'd be VERY hard to game or click-fraud. If the engine set, for instance, a minimum call length before charging (say, 15 seconds), you're not going to get random "calling farms" in India making 16 second calls, IMHO :-).
Of course, really cheap-ass companies participating in the program could say "Oh, hi! Let me quickly get your number and call you back..." but -- especially when high-ticket items or subscriptions are at stake -- I don't think such behavior is likely. The annoyance of that would likely offset too much potential revenue from customers.
* * *
From at a technical perspective, I think this would be pretty easy to do. I understand that there might be some referrer-acknowledgement issues (e.g., people surfing in high-paranoid mode with referrer stuff turned off), but on the whole, I can imagine that advertisers would be willing to pay a premium for a visit + call... and consumers would be well-served, too.
What are your thoughts on this? Am I missing a key problem here?
Monday, November 14, 2005
Helpful numbers to save in your phone!
I invite you to go grab your cell phone / mobile phone / home phone whatever and program the following numbers into it:
- 1-800-555-8355 ("555 TELL" -- TellMe)
- 1-800-373-3411 ("FREE 411" -- Free411)
- 1-888-392-7563 ("EZ ASK ME" -- AskMeNow - Initial signup on site required)
- 46645 ("GOOGL" - Google SMS beta - Google via Text Messaging)
NOTE: One or more of these numbers may be U.S.-only... sorry :|
For details on each service, read on...
TELLME
I've been using this service for ages, and it's really gotten me out of some tight jams!
Via interactive voice menus, callers can easily get weather reports, serious and entertainment news, movie info, and much more. But the butt-saving features I've particularly appreciated are TAXI and DRIVING DIRECTIONS. The former will connect you (free of charge) with a local cab company, and the latter gives you step-by-step spoken driving directions between any two points in the U.S. (powered by "Microsoft MapPoint Technologies")
Supposedly, TellMe is ad-supported, but I have yet to hear any ads on the service.
* * *
FREE 411
Tired of paying $1.25 and up to your greedy mobile or landline phone company for directory assistance? Then you'll especially love Free 411! Not only does it find residential and business phone numbers for you, it also connects you free-of-charge (even to long distance numbers!) This service is apparently ad-supported (e.g., ask for Dominos Pizza, get a 15 second ad for a competing pizza place), but I've never heard any ads during the 3-4 times I've used this service.
Voice recognition is pretty decent, but the one time I stumped it, I was transferred to a human operator who was able to promptly get me the number I requested.
Frankly, though, I do wonder how sustainable this is. Will enough companies really pay to have folks redirected to them? If people are asking for Smith Window Washing services, will they really be so easily swayed towards a competitor? I have my doubts. But in the meantime, I'm happy to use this very convenient free 411 service!
* * *
ASK ME NOW
Need to know the capital of Wisconsin? Or find the phone number of a particular Citibank branch? Sure, if you're near an Internet-connected computer, you could probably quickly and easily find this info yourself. But what if you're busy or not near a computer? Yes, I have a Web browser on my Treo phone, but it's slow, the screen is small, and it's generally just a miserable experience trying to navigate Web sites with it.
Well, Ask Me Now is indeed a viable alternative. You call their number, leave a message, and 1-3 minutes later, you get back text messages with the right answer. Or at least AN answer. In my minimal testing, Ask Me Now gave me the right answer to "What is the Capital of Wisconsin?" but gave me the wrong answer to "What is the phone number of the Citibank branch located on Diamond Street in San Francisco?" The person (apparently located in the Philippines) who answered my query clearly just quickly googled for the answer and didn't bother checking on Citibank's Web site, since the correct answer is available in the latter, not the former.
This service costs 49 cents per query, billed to your cell phone account. Supposedly you can get free 'automated' answers, but it's not clear to me what qualifies as free and not-free, even after looking on the company's Web site.
* * *
GOOGLE SMS
Another option is Google's SMS service. Text message GOOGL (46645) to get driving directions, movie showtimes, weather reports, price comparisons, and more.
I've found this service to be both wonderous and frustrating. For instance, when I asked it [What is the capitol [sic] of wisconsin?] it replied back "Did you mean CAPITAL..." and gave me an appropriate Web page... when I would have preferred for it to actually include the answer, not just a link, in the reply. Additionally, when I asked it [Phone number for Citibank on Diamond St in San Francisco CA] it replied unhelpfully: "Looking for map of [query]? Unfortunately map information is not available through Google SMS."
I had better luck with other queries, such as [weather 91360] and [what is the population of belgium].
* * *
YAHOO SMS
Despite multiple attempts, I could not get this service to work. I kept getting an "Invalid..." message, with instructions relating to Y! Messenger, after even using the exact queries listed on this page. Bummer. Any Yahoo people out there wanna help me figure out what's going on here? I've heard good things about Yahoo's mobile offerings and perhaps there's just something small / obvious I'm missing?
- 1-800-555-8355 ("555 TELL" -- TellMe)
- 1-800-373-3411 ("FREE 411" -- Free411)
- 1-888-392-7563 ("EZ ASK ME" -- AskMeNow - Initial signup on site required)
- 46645 ("GOOGL" - Google SMS beta - Google via Text Messaging)
NOTE: One or more of these numbers may be U.S.-only... sorry :|
For details on each service, read on...
TELLME
I've been using this service for ages, and it's really gotten me out of some tight jams!
Via interactive voice menus, callers can easily get weather reports, serious and entertainment news, movie info, and much more. But the butt-saving features I've particularly appreciated are TAXI and DRIVING DIRECTIONS. The former will connect you (free of charge) with a local cab company, and the latter gives you step-by-step spoken driving directions between any two points in the U.S. (powered by "Microsoft MapPoint Technologies")
Supposedly, TellMe is ad-supported, but I have yet to hear any ads on the service.
* * *
FREE 411
Tired of paying $1.25 and up to your greedy mobile or landline phone company for directory assistance? Then you'll especially love Free 411! Not only does it find residential and business phone numbers for you, it also connects you free-of-charge (even to long distance numbers!) This service is apparently ad-supported (e.g., ask for Dominos Pizza, get a 15 second ad for a competing pizza place), but I've never heard any ads during the 3-4 times I've used this service.
Voice recognition is pretty decent, but the one time I stumped it, I was transferred to a human operator who was able to promptly get me the number I requested.
Frankly, though, I do wonder how sustainable this is. Will enough companies really pay to have folks redirected to them? If people are asking for Smith Window Washing services, will they really be so easily swayed towards a competitor? I have my doubts. But in the meantime, I'm happy to use this very convenient free 411 service!
* * *
ASK ME NOW
Need to know the capital of Wisconsin? Or find the phone number of a particular Citibank branch? Sure, if you're near an Internet-connected computer, you could probably quickly and easily find this info yourself. But what if you're busy or not near a computer? Yes, I have a Web browser on my Treo phone, but it's slow, the screen is small, and it's generally just a miserable experience trying to navigate Web sites with it.
Well, Ask Me Now is indeed a viable alternative. You call their number, leave a message, and 1-3 minutes later, you get back text messages with the right answer. Or at least AN answer. In my minimal testing, Ask Me Now gave me the right answer to "What is the Capital of Wisconsin?" but gave me the wrong answer to "What is the phone number of the Citibank branch located on Diamond Street in San Francisco?" The person (apparently located in the Philippines) who answered my query clearly just quickly googled for the answer and didn't bother checking on Citibank's Web site, since the correct answer is available in the latter, not the former.
This service costs 49 cents per query, billed to your cell phone account. Supposedly you can get free 'automated' answers, but it's not clear to me what qualifies as free and not-free, even after looking on the company's Web site.
* * *
GOOGLE SMS
Another option is Google's SMS service. Text message GOOGL (46645) to get driving directions, movie showtimes, weather reports, price comparisons, and more.
I've found this service to be both wonderous and frustrating. For instance, when I asked it [What is the capitol [sic] of wisconsin?] it replied back "Did you mean CAPITAL..." and gave me an appropriate Web page... when I would have preferred for it to actually include the answer, not just a link, in the reply. Additionally, when I asked it [Phone number for Citibank on Diamond St in San Francisco CA] it replied unhelpfully: "Looking for map of [query]? Unfortunately map information is not available through Google SMS."
I had better luck with other queries, such as [weather 91360] and [what is the population of belgium].
* * *
YAHOO SMS
Despite multiple attempts, I could not get this service to work. I kept getting an "Invalid..." message, with instructions relating to Y! Messenger, after even using the exact queries listed on this page. Bummer. Any Yahoo people out there wanna help me figure out what's going on here? I've heard good things about Yahoo's mobile offerings and perhaps there's just something small / obvious I'm missing?
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Google Analytics (formerly Urchin) free Web Stats is now live
https://www.google.com/analytics/
I learned that this was coming via this Information Week article.
Lots of fascinating issues and implications!
- How much of a further competitive edge will this give AdWords over other pay-per-click advertising services like Yahoo! Search Marketing?
- Will this completely decimate small, low-cost Web Stats services like StatCounter? My gut is that it'll make a dent, particularly amongst small to medium-sized businesses, but that for those who are looking for something very quick, easy to set up, and fast to browse, they may indeed stick with simpler solutions.
- What will this mean for HitBox, ClickTracks, etc? Once again, I think this'll significantly impact their share of small-to-medium-sized clients, but it's very unlikely to rock any relationships with Fortune 500 / large firms.
My experience with Urchin?
I set up and used the service with a client a few months ago, and found it to offer fascinating insights and have very high potential overall, but it was frustratingly creaky (slow, a bit flakey) undoubtedly due to the high (millions of hits a month) traffic it was being asked to process for this client.
With that said, though, I can't wait to try this out on my blog and my other personal sites, and I will recomend it heartily to my smaller clients. Assuming Google manages to scale this decently, I can see recommending it to larger clients as well.
Still, however, I'm skeptical that Google's customer support will scale decently for this product. Urchin, er, Google Analytics is a very complex, frankly complicated service, and there are so many places in which users can become confused or overwhelmed. Thankfully, Google recently substantially improved their help documentation (a couple of months ago), but still...
And hmm... perhaps Google will roll out a more limited and/or fully integrated version for BlogSpot folks at a later time?
Anyway, I'm going to quit blathering and give this service a try now. :-)
I learned that this was coming via this Information Week article.
Lots of fascinating issues and implications!
- How much of a further competitive edge will this give AdWords over other pay-per-click advertising services like Yahoo! Search Marketing?
- Will this completely decimate small, low-cost Web Stats services like StatCounter? My gut is that it'll make a dent, particularly amongst small to medium-sized businesses, but that for those who are looking for something very quick, easy to set up, and fast to browse, they may indeed stick with simpler solutions.
- What will this mean for HitBox, ClickTracks, etc? Once again, I think this'll significantly impact their share of small-to-medium-sized clients, but it's very unlikely to rock any relationships with Fortune 500 / large firms.
My experience with Urchin?
I set up and used the service with a client a few months ago, and found it to offer fascinating insights and have very high potential overall, but it was frustratingly creaky (slow, a bit flakey) undoubtedly due to the high (millions of hits a month) traffic it was being asked to process for this client.
With that said, though, I can't wait to try this out on my blog and my other personal sites, and I will recomend it heartily to my smaller clients. Assuming Google manages to scale this decently, I can see recommending it to larger clients as well.
Still, however, I'm skeptical that Google's customer support will scale decently for this product. Urchin, er, Google Analytics is a very complex, frankly complicated service, and there are so many places in which users can become confused or overwhelmed. Thankfully, Google recently substantially improved their help documentation (a couple of months ago), but still...
And hmm... perhaps Google will roll out a more limited and/or fully integrated version for BlogSpot folks at a later time?
Anyway, I'm going to quit blathering and give this service a try now. :-)
Ridiculously insane Web hosting deal... 77 cents a month
First, let me offer a sincere disclaimer: I've debated whether or not to post this, because I'll get free Web hosting credits when people sign up with the link below.
But I've decided that this deal is simply too amazing not to share, and I just can't feel that guilty for using an affiliate link (when being up-front about it) in this context. I've already set up an account for myself, urged my good friends to get accounts, etc.
Here's the deal:
- 4.8gb of space (increases weekly by 40mb)
- 120gb of monthly bandwidth (increases weekly by 1gb)
- Plus shell access, mySQL, mailing lists, ftp, etc. etc. etc.
- Free 1-year registration of a domain
- Unlimited domain/subdomain hosting
...for $9.24 *TOTAL* for the first year (77 cents a month).
After that, it's $7.95 or $9.95/month (still a fab deal), and perhaps even cheaper by then.
Here's how to sign up:
1) Click here.
2) Click on "Managed Web Hosting."
3) Click on the "signup now" button under "Crazy Domain Insane."
4) Select the 12 month term.
5) Make sure to enter promotion code 777 to receive the special pricing!
* * *
I do welcome your frank thoughts both about this post and about DreamHost. My experience with DH so far has been generally good... a relatively straightforward signup process (with my account active in under 2 minutes), a friendly forum... but on the flip side, my control panel was initially slow, and I find the CP to be a bit unintuitive. Site speed, thankfully, seems pretty fast.
Lastly, I'd like to give a hat tip to the fabulously cool and useful deals site SlickDeals.net, from which I initially learned about this offer.
UPDATE: Comments closed on this entry due to the enormously lame spamming by tons of competing Web hosts... not actually offering any particular deals, just glomming onto any mention "Web host" in a blog entry. Losers.
But I've decided that this deal is simply too amazing not to share, and I just can't feel that guilty for using an affiliate link (when being up-front about it) in this context. I've already set up an account for myself, urged my good friends to get accounts, etc.
Here's the deal:
- 4.8gb of space (increases weekly by 40mb)
- 120gb of monthly bandwidth (increases weekly by 1gb)
- Plus shell access, mySQL, mailing lists, ftp, etc. etc. etc.
- Free 1-year registration of a domain
- Unlimited domain/subdomain hosting
...for $9.24 *TOTAL* for the first year (77 cents a month).
After that, it's $7.95 or $9.95/month (still a fab deal), and perhaps even cheaper by then.
Here's how to sign up:
1) Click here.
2) Click on "Managed Web Hosting."
3) Click on the "signup now" button under "Crazy Domain Insane."
4) Select the 12 month term.
5) Make sure to enter promotion code 777 to receive the special pricing!
* * *
I do welcome your frank thoughts both about this post and about DreamHost. My experience with DH so far has been generally good... a relatively straightforward signup process (with my account active in under 2 minutes), a friendly forum... but on the flip side, my control panel was initially slow, and I find the CP to be a bit unintuitive. Site speed, thankfully, seems pretty fast.
Lastly, I'd like to give a hat tip to the fabulously cool and useful deals site SlickDeals.net, from which I initially learned about this offer.
UPDATE: Comments closed on this entry due to the enormously lame spamming by tons of competing Web hosts... not actually offering any particular deals, just glomming onto any mention "Web host" in a blog entry. Losers.
Saturday, November 5, 2005
Yahoo! and Google Maps... add more common sense, please
I don't know about you, but the vast majority of searches I do on Google Maps and the splendiforous new Y! Maps (beta) are for directions from my apartment in San Francisco to somewhere else in the city. Here's the sort of search I'd type in by default:
[{my address} to 16th and valencia]
But both Google and Yahoo! choke on this search, and choke bad. Yahoo! gives me an error message saying the address could not be found, and then nonetheless gives me directions to Valencia, Arizona. Google performs no better here; it asks me "Did you mean Valencia Road, Bromsgrove, Hereford and Worcester, B60, UK?" Suuuuuure, Google, I'm going to get in my car and drive from San Francisco to the UK. ;-)
Where's a Common Sense module when you need one?
For starters, how about assuming that if I don't add on a city, state or zip code, that I'm intending to travel within my home city. On G, one can already define a default starting point. And I'd assume that, when logged in to one's Y! account, Yahoo already knows one's home city, too. Not to mention IP sniffing possibilities, too!
Or even better yet, if it's not too computationally resource intense, it'd be great if the engines could assume a 100 mile radius and prioritize by proximity. That means if I type in 123 Mission St and I'm in San Francisco, I probably mean to indicate that street in SF or nearby, not somewhere in Minnesota. Since most of us don't have zip codes handy when we're doing directions, it's a lot faster and easier to type [555 myhomestreet 94112 to 123 mission st] than [555 myhomestreet 94112 to 123 mission st, san francisco, ca].
Lastly, I understand that sometimes requests ARE ambiguous (maybe I meant mission street in a nearby city, not SF, despite failing to specify it)... so the services should always preface the results on such ambiguous requests with something like this:\
Am I on target here, or would such assumption-makings on the part of the engines be more trouble than they're worth?
[{my address} to 16th and valencia]
But both Google and Yahoo! choke on this search, and choke bad. Yahoo! gives me an error message saying the address could not be found, and then nonetheless gives me directions to Valencia, Arizona. Google performs no better here; it asks me "Did you mean Valencia Road, Bromsgrove, Hereford and Worcester, B60, UK?" Suuuuuure, Google, I'm going to get in my car and drive from San Francisco to the UK. ;-)
Where's a Common Sense module when you need one?
For starters, how about assuming that if I don't add on a city, state or zip code, that I'm intending to travel within my home city. On G, one can already define a default starting point. And I'd assume that, when logged in to one's Y! account, Yahoo already knows one's home city, too. Not to mention IP sniffing possibilities, too!
Or even better yet, if it's not too computationally resource intense, it'd be great if the engines could assume a 100 mile radius and prioritize by proximity. That means if I type in 123 Mission St and I'm in San Francisco, I probably mean to indicate that street in SF or nearby, not somewhere in Minnesota. Since most of us don't have zip codes handy when we're doing directions, it's a lot faster and easier to type [555 myhomestreet 94112 to 123 mission st] than [555 myhomestreet 94112 to 123 mission st, san francisco, ca].
Lastly, I understand that sometimes requests ARE ambiguous (maybe I meant mission street in a nearby city, not SF, despite failing to specify it)... so the services should always preface the results on such ambiguous requests with something like this:\
NOTE: We assumed you're traveling to 123 mission street in San Francisco, CA. If this isn't right, please retype your request and specify the city and state.And heck, for that matter, why can't I type [1531 19th ave to 99 valencia st] and have it assume I mean San Francisco (based upon my signin, my past searches, my IP address, whatever)?
Am I on target here, or would such assumption-makings on the part of the engines be more trouble than they're worth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)