A Pop-Culture Addict First

It's been a gloomy, semi-cold day here and I've found myself laying on the couch under my down comforter and enjoying the laziness of an afternoon sipping coffee and watching cooking shows. What's so "first" about this for me: I've been watching PBS...and liking it.

Out of the people I hang around with, I'm usually lambasted as the one who could care less about NPR (I know, I know...I should care) and who turns my nose up at any kind of crunchy, granola mass media choices for the loud and flashy shallowness of E! or VH1. But, I was perfectly content to snuggle in with America's Test Kitchen, Check Please!, and Everyday Cooking. Since I've been looking for viable alternatives to most of the shows on the Food Network which have become so carnivalized since their inception, I was overjoyed to find just what I was looking for on WTTW11. So, let me give a rundown of the actual shows I watched today:

America's Test Kitchen: This is a great alternative to 30 Minute Meals (and don't we all deserve one?). What they do is present one meal that the test kitchen has perfected over several trials. What I really appreciated is that they break down what can seem like very complicated recipes into very simple steps and make great suggestions on how to make it simply but still retain the "best it can be" quality. Extra special is a 10 minute segment in the middle where they do a taste test of a particular product featured in the recipe. Informative and practical. Warning: Of all the episodes I've seen (5), I've never seen a vegetarian dish featured. But, the cooking tips and the way they teach working with flavors could probably translate into vegetarian meals.


Real Simple: Alright, confession: this is not a cooking show. But it's one of those "lifestyle shows" that's good brain candy. The episode I saw featured segments on stenciling, whether or not price clubs are worth it, and other "lifestyle" artsy-craftsy lessons. While not deep or really showing anything new, it seems to capture the essence of the "Real Simple" magazine which I love but cannot afford at a cover price that's nearly $5. These are three lovely people (obviously not paid for their brainpower) but willing to relate to me the virtues of table-scaping. A GREAT and BETTER alternative to Stupid Cooking with Sandra Lee, as it features neither stupid cooking nor Sandra Lee.

Everyday Food: Exec-Produced by Martha Stewart(grrrr), this show is a nice conglomeration of what you might find on 30 Minute Meals, Barefoot Contessa, Tyler's Ultimate, and any other of the barrage of semi-annoying shows the Food Network offers. Again, very simple recipes that end up looking really elegant. This cast mixes up entrees, appetizers, and dessert recipes nicely and run the gamut from country fried chicken to the best peanut butter and jelly sandwich ever. It's just a nice show to watch and the recipes are easy to replicate.

Personally, I think the only show on Food Network that will not be replicated anywhere else is Alton Brown's Good Eats, which I will still happily tune in for at every chance I get.

And, while I love the fact that PBS now offers a quasi-food network feast on Saturdays, I have to wonder how much this means that PBS is changing its original oatey, crunchy granola platform to be able to compete with flashier networks. PBS has always been the home for some tie to more intellectual, certainly high(er) culture, efforts offered to everyone who has a television. While there are 8 ESPN channels, there's always been only one PBS with a distinctive ability to fill a small yet important niche in local programming that will never include a discussion of Britney Spears or "super simple, spicey and savory, savvy suppers" touted by a Barbie-doll proportioned know-nothing. So, I feel a little conflicted about my joy that now their shows are mostly produced by the people and companies that it was able to distinguish itself from for so long. Even though they still offer programming without commercials (a fact that overjoyed me to my core) what does that mean when the programming itself turns decidedly commercial?

Aw, hell...I'm still watching...and I'm telling all my pop culture junkies to do the same.

Wonder-ful Sesame Street

Alright, so my friend Jacob makes an excellent point. After the last post I left on James Blunt appearing on Sesame Street, Jacob sent me this:

Now I really don't know what to think about Sesame Street as I completely don't remember this at all. Stevie Wonder, circa 1970s, is singing "Superstition" on this show for kids and makes no excuses. He jams the whole song that is about seven minutes while the little kids in the background, apparently residents of "the Street" flail wildly or, at the very least, keep the beat: okay, okay, they're jiving. That could have been me.

So, now, to me the question gets even more complex: Stevie Wonder in the 70s sings "Superstition" (which I thought was excellent upon the revisiting) in a concert format with his whole band there, including the saxophones (really, what were the 70s if they weren't about the saxes). Meanwhile, in aut-7 we've got James Blunt singing about Euclidian geometry in his revised version of a song I just happen to hate, helped by Telly. Are the effects different for children? Obviously, I remember the "Numbers song" and not Stevie Wonder. Is this the same for James Blunt, do you suppose?

And, of course, I'm assuming these appearances then, become much more important in attracting the parents to turn on Sesame Street. If it comes to turning on Teletubbies which kids love but freaks parents out with that weird "baby in the sun" thing or Sesame Street which features the hottest bands and celebs, deemed so by the parents, then is it really good fun for everybody?

My issue is this: my guess is that I learned to dance (gulp) from Steve Wonder on SS. I got up in my little toddler velour outfit--horizontally striped of course--and busted it out. But Stevie didn't teach me anything other than how to groove. Thus, today, when I hear "Superstition" I'm still willing to bust it out, although I need more coaxing today than I probably did then. However, when I hear "Euclidian geometry" I think of Mrs. Strunk who was my high school geometry teacher and who slaved away to teach me what a hypoteneuse was and why I needed to know it. She had those answers. Did I rely on her to teach me how to groove--no, that was Stevie's territory. I think we have a lack of bracketing in this world: James Blunt may be an expert at whining in song (and if you've heard his songs you know that's true) BUT my guess is he's not an expert at Euclidian geometry. So what's he doing singing about triangles? We're setting up a weird system of legitimacy that goes something like this:

Celebrities know Everything.
James Blunt* is a Celebrity.
--------------------------------
James Blunt knows Everything
Thus, he must know about Euclidian geometry

*(Substitute your favorite celebrity's name here; I could see this working with Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Madonna--especially those that have adopted "very important" humanitarian causes as those they invented them.)

The Stevie Wonder appearance on SS wouldn't fit using this syllogism, because the assumptions were different back then: Stevie Wonder was the guy who played awesome music who had that weird head-wave thing. No one assumed he knew anything other than music, thus he was a legitimate source for music. Nothing should be different with James Blunt, but I feel like this show made it different. There is a world full of math teachers ready to be called up for SS duty--who would love to tell all those little tots in their Baby Phat velour jumpsuits what a triangle is. Did they appear on the show? No. They were Blunted. And they should be as inexplicably angry as I am.

Frankly, I'm still abhorred by the fact that we feel the need to introduce three year-olds to Euclidian geometry via the triangle (for the record, the song actually included the word "hypoteneuse" which upon hearing I broke out into a rash). I guess the introduction of the concept of "celebrity" is all the same. But let me warn everyone: I am a product of Sesame Street in the 70s...and now I write this blog...about celebrity and pop culture. I am a testament to the effects of that early introduction. But at least I can thank Mrs. Strunk, who is not a celebrity, for teaching me legitimate things about math--in school.

Blunt Message on Sesame Street

I was fascinated on several accounts: 1) I thought the re-imagining of the song was pretty hilarious, including the harmony provided by Telly. 2) I was surprised to see James Blunt, who I don't particularly consider "kid friendly" singing about one of my favorite Euclidian shapes (and I actually wondered if he even knew who Euclid was) and 3) I was horrified that now a whole generation of youngsters would forever hum and sing the melody of that damn "Angel" song which now will invade my dreams for at least the next two weeks.

Clearly times have changed. When I watched Sesame Street as a member of the target audience, we used to sing "The numbers" song (jivey one-two-three-FOUR-five, six-SE-ven-eight-nine-ten...E-LE-VEN-twelve) and other made up tunes. Mine never included a discussion of Euclidian geometry and/or James Blunt. Furthermore, a little investigation told me that this is usual M.O. for sesame street--to have whoever the "it" people of the day are on to either interact with the puppets, sing, or rap, all the while talking about what great friends they are to the residents of Sesame Street.

Honestly, this makes me feel a little dirty. Nothing like marketing music and movies directly to the kids. Maria and Gordon weren't good enough--no, now we have to have Lindsay Lohan on telling the kids that drugs are bad or James Blunt singing about triangles. WHAT IS JAMES BLUNT'S RELATIONSHIP TO TRIANGLES??? This just seems very wrong; let's keep those fertile minds focused on what's important: Celebrity.

Yuck.