Skip to main content

Feel The Music

I was cruising the Internets this morning looking for a pair of portable headphones. And I discovered a couple of things. Apparently a common Google question is, "Can I use my headphones for a microphone?" Apparently you can. You can also use pliers for a hammer and you can employ Microsoft Surface as a cutting board if you wish, but would you? 

I then looked for "May I use my headphones for a microphone?" and found nothing. The discourtesy of this younger generation continues to disturb.

The second thing I discovered was even more ephemeral, but you're reading Mr Trivia's Tract, not Mr Crucial's Manifesto and this kind of nonsense is why we are here. I saw a pair of clip-on 'over-ear' headphones and wondered if they were any better than the last time I tried them about ten years ago.

There followed the fairly nonsensical 3 am thought - I wonder if I can find a picture of someone using a pair of clip on headphones and looking as though they're enjoying the experience? Ridiculous. 

I Googled "Wearing Clip On Headphones" and got nothing useful. But I did note a strange pattern emerging on the first page of hits. There were many stock photos of women with headphones and they all seemed to suggest that enhancing the enjoyment of the private listening experience requires one to hold a hand, or even better both hands, to the speaker portion of the headphone. This gesture appears to indicate, "I am so into the music–or this Ira Glass podcast–that I have to physically touch the magic little sound shells from where the gods speaketh and singeth". 

Or maybe the guys down at Shutterstock.com (over 20 million stock photos, illustrations, vectors, and videos) where it turns out all the pictures come from, just have a fetish for ladies touching their headphones. I suspect we will never find out.

Mr Trivia






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What's with George Eads' Hair?

DailyCeleb.com & David Edwards


Hey Zeitgeisters,

Bet you thought this blog would never top “What’s with Bradley Whitford’s Hair?” For those of you who weren’t part of that historical blog entry, it was the glittering moment where I wondered what’s with West Wing star Bradley Whitford’s hair. Good times.

However, tonight, while watching the current series (in Australia) of CSI :Original Recipe, I was forced to witness the unpleasantness of George Eads’ new(ish) 'do and I felt compelled to blog on’t.

George plays the part of Nick Stokes and has spent some 5 or 6 seasons with a haircut “you could set your watch to,” as Grandpa Simpson might say. It was always short; it always had that US Marine Corps vibe; it was always as dependable as the ebbing and flowing of the tides.

Now in something of an El Nino effect, I note that someone in Jerry Bruckheimer’s organization has decided to mess with the length of George’s crowning glory.

Although I chiefly watch CSI waiting for Grissom…

What’s with Bradley Whitford’s Hair?

Okay, Zeitgeisters, that’s as shallow an attention-grabbing start as one could ever want, but I really want to know. And sure, I’m really talking about Josh Lyman’s hair. (I’m like one of those people who insist on calling an actor by their character’s name – only in reverse. e.g. “Go Knight Boat!”)

Whitford plays Deputy Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman, in the Aaron Sorkin-created, NBC television series The West Wing. He plays this part to a tee and now he’s set to do great things in the new Sorkin drama, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. I know this last bit because the Angriest Ex-Video Store Clerk in the world told me.

Oh, and Whitford’s married to the awesome Jane Kaczmarek who plays mom, Lois, in the series Malcolm in the Middle. So Mr Whitford’s your regular pop-cultural icon and yardstick for excellence. We’re here in this, frankly, puzzling cultural landscape, because I’ve just finished watching season four of The West Wing on DVD. And Josh Lyman’s hair has bothered me throughout. It’s…

Not Canon? Son of A Gun!

So my fellow geeks, is there any way we can consider Joe Pesci's turn on the Snickers' telly ad as canonical to the LETHAL WEAPON franchise, or the Angry Man in Scorsese Films Like RAGING BULL and CASINO franchise? Probably not.

The idea that there is an established body of works that shape a fictional character and others that do not, has spread like Vegemite thanks to Our Beloved Internet. Her, nerds and geeks of every stripe will argue, for example, which movies or TV series about the Teenage Mutant Turtles are canon and which are not. In some versions of the story, Turtles mentor, Splinter is the mutated form of a man called Hamato Yoshi and in other versions he is the mutation of a rat owned by Yoshi.

I am given to understand that Peter Cushing's role in the 1965 movie DOCTOR WHO AND THE DALEKS is not canon, but is considered part of some kind of extended Doctor Who Universe. Science Fiction franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek, often have meandering strands of s…