About seven years ago, MTV launched one of it’s more successful programs sort-of-related-to-music-but-not-really programs, The Osbournes. A new era of reality TV was ushered in that mixed good ol’ fashion family values with good ol’ fashion profanity. Though the show ran it’s course, FOX seems to think that people will still tune in to see the most incoherent member of the family host a variety show.

As the NY Daily News reports:

Also new is a variety show hosted by Ozzy Osbourne and family, called “Osbournes: Reloaded,” which will mix musical performances, comedy sketches, game-show competitions and, most likely, more than its fair share of expletives.

“There’s always curiosity as to what this family is going to do,” said Reilly. “And right now, the reality genre is a mature genre. There’s a lot of versions of versions, so a variety show starring the Osbournes, you’re not going to mistake that for six other shows on the air.”

Half of the good news is that it sounds like Ozzy will likely has his family to translate assist him with hosting duties. The other half sounds is that it seems as though the show will actually feature musical performances, which means that the Osbournes’ show on FOX will have more music programming than their show on MTV did. Strange.

Another odd bit is that FOX wants to lump this into the “reality TV” category. This sounds a little more like Letterman or Conan than Survivor. Is NBC going to call Jay Leno’s primetime endeavor “reality TV?” I guess those two words are still buzzworthy in Hollywood.

Did anyone watch the Golden Globes the other night? No? Me neither, but I guess this starts the “Oscar season.” I haven’t seen too many movies this year, so I feel a little out of the loop. Though after finally browsing the Globe nominees (and winners) this morning, I realized that my predictions are probably just about as good as anyone else’s!

The Dark Knight
Under normal circumstances, an action film based on a comic book wouldn’t stand a chance at the Oscars. However, this film also happens to be the number two highest-grossing film of all time featuring the final performance of a beloved actor who suffered a tragic death. It’s a game-changer that will pull off a few noms: Best Supporting Actor, some technical awards and maybe even Best Picture.

Tropic Thunder
Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Cruise both scored Best Supporting Actor nominations for Tropic Thunder. Comedies are often decried by the Oscars, and this film may be a little too slapstick for the academy, but if there’s an off-chance it’d be great to see the dude playing the dude disguised as the other dude score the award.

(KEEP READING OSCAR BUZZ)

As we get closer to the Presidential inauguration, a little thought sparked in my brain. If we vote for President, shouldn’t we also get to vote for the inaugural performers? I mean, we still might end up with the Ricky Martins and Fleetwood Macs of the world, but, heck, at least we VOTED them into that performance. We can sit and whine about how lame the acts are (assuming we took the time to vote for acts–those that don’t vote aren’t allowed to complain).

Now, I’m sure there will be those who argue that performers at the inauguration are appointed, not elected. This is valid enough, but think about the confirmation hearings and cabinet appointments Supreme Court justices go through! Sure, Obama would have the benefit of a Democratic Congress, but I still wager that a Ludacris performance would be filibustered so fast it’d make America’s collective head spin.

Oh, and my vote for a band to perform at the 2008 Inaugural? AIDS Wolf. Nothing says America more than a bunch of noisy punks from Montreal!

When it comes to touring, it seems everyone has their two cents to contribute. Some of this information is helpful, but most of it isn’t. So if ever find yourself in a situation with the opportunity to sift through a nearly 600 page book, realize that probably over 500 of those pages are pure crap.

I have no doubt that Martin Atkins has a lot of funny tour stories that I would love to read about. Heck, he’s been in bands like Public Image Ltd., Pigface and Ministry, and his book Tour Smart: And Break The Band has tons of stories from tours of acts like Nine Inch Nails, Henry Rollins and the Suicide Girls.

Ultimately, the book generally involves too much high budget concern to be relevant to the indie band, and for the few who might find the book applicable, well, I hope they would know most of the “advice” in the first place. It would’ve worked as a collection of tour diaries, but as a how-to of touring? No.

However, it’s really unfair of me to single out this book. In fact, it’s just the nature of the music industry beast that it is impossible to be a definitive source for how to do anything. The planning behind the smallest of DIY bands is far from how a major label act would go about things–not to mention the hodgepodge of folks in between those extremes. I can think of only two rules that could apply to all bands across the spectrum that would help to achieve maximum profits: cut costs, increase income. Of course, both of those are easier said than done.

I’m guessing Cadillac Sky are Red Sox fans. I may not know much about sports, but for those who may know even less than I do, there is a long-standing rivalry between the Red Sox and the Yankees. As a result, I often cloud my New England upbringing while in New York City for fear of local Yankees fans–though this pales in comparison to my fear of discussing living in New York City around Red Sox supporters when I visit Boston.

So imagine my surprise when I read this article on Gothamist stating that the New York Times plans to sell their stake in the Boston Red Sox. Excuse me? What’s a New York-based paper doing with any sort of investments in the Red Sox? Where is the newspaper’s loyalty to the hometown team? How can we trust the New York Times? All of a sudden, I feel like I’m sounding a lot like Fox News.

I have no desire to disparage the Times. It is still one of the finest papers in America, but it speaks volumes about the nature of the media business in America–that it’s become more about the business side and less about the media part.

Since banking, insurance and housing have all tanked, maybe it’s time the media starts investing once more in itself. Perhaps boosting staffs and budgets back up–the way it was before doing “more with less” was in vogue. Maybe all the dwindling circulation, fewer ad sales and thinner sections are because “more with less” isn’t really possible. When you put in less, you get less out.

For several reasons I ended up staying in this New Year’s Eve. (No, I wasn’t afraid of being mentioned years from now on an Uncensored Interview clip!) It afforded me the opportunity to check in with Dick Clark’s Rockin’ New Year’s Eve with Ryan Seacrest–yes, that is the official name for it now.

Since Dick Clark’s stroke a couple years back, seeing him speak from the studio was simultaneously inspiring and depressing. I really have nothing but good things to say about the man. Even the choice of Ryan Seacrest as his successor makes sense in this American Idol obsessed world.

My only issue with the celebration is the fact that they still include “Rockin’” in the show’s title. I mean, for the most part the acts aren’t really “rock” bands. The Pussycat Dolls? Taylor Swift? Yeah, they don’t exactly rock. Fall Out Boy probably would win the most rockin’ performance of the evening award. Sadly, I can’t even come up with who would get second place. Maybe the Jonas Brothers? I feel dirty even considering calling the Jonas Brothers “rock.”

Not that there weren’t a slew of great performances. Each one seemed particularly on the ball that evening–though friends I was with had suspicions of lip-syncing and backing tracks replacing real singing and instrument playing. However, it’s not so much as issue of whether these performers were good or not, but do they rock? And can they be called “Rockin’?”

Looks like Shy Child will have one less drink to get caffeinated off of in the new year. Recently it was announced that the orange-ish flavored, alcoholic, caffeine-laden drink Sparks would be reformulated without the good stuff.

Oddly, the move isn’t economically-related. Sparks is the number one beverage of its kind. Instead, the decision was made because of state attorney generals pressuring the company with a claim that its product was marketed to children. I’m not sure how they define “children,” but I think advertising for alcohol in general has been geared toward teenagers for a long time now–remember the Budweiser frogs?

There’s probably a thousand and one jokes to be had at Sparks’ expense. Lamenting the loss of orange tongues and half-drunk, half-stimulated hipsters is one thing, but Sparks also sponsored a lot of parties and shows (at least New York City)–mostly 21+ shows, I might add. It’s possible that this media blitz will continue when the drink is reformulated, but likely it will just go the way of Zima.

So now is the time for the unknowns (Tilt, Joose, Four, etc.) to come in and fill the void. I’m sure there are plenty of bands ready and willing to take your drink up on stage at an open bar in exchange for a bit of cash. Hey, it worked for Sparks.