Jump to content
Key Links: Announcements | Support Desk

As The World Turns Discussion Thread


edgeofnik

Recommended Posts

  • Members
15 hours ago, lilyredd said:

Best part of this episode was Mary Kay Adams. Just a wonderful actor. She even made Royce and Scott tolerable. Great chemistry with everyone and I loved her interaction with Lucinda. 
 

John and Iva? Were they popular? I tended fast forward through them and the Snyder family in general. 

 

Am I the only person who felt distracted by Lisa Brown's dental work? I feel somewhat bad for saying this aloud but honestly, when I watch her appearances in the 90s and beyond, it's one of the most prominent things that I see every time I watch an episode from this period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 12.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • P.J.

    664

  • Soapsuds

    1143

  • DRW50

    2441

  • DramatistDreamer

    1457

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members
31 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

Am I the only person who felt distracted by Lisa Brown's dental work? I feel somewhat bad for saying this aloud but honestly, when I watch her appearances in the 90s and beyond, it's one of the most prominent things that I see every time I watch an episode from this period.

Never noticed her dental work. I always thought young Lisa Brown looked a bit like young Judy Garland. I remember they had Iva win some contest and get a makeover and a cruise and I always thought it was funny because that lady had every hair color under the sun and had different looks through the years but in reality needed a personality transplant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

Reading a Fred Astaire TV Guide profile from 1980.

Fred watched ATWT and GL every afternoon!

He got into the habit as he lived with his mom and they watched together until her death in 1975.

 

Edited by Paul Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

Once upon a time there was a thread about soaps and the use of licensed popular music, which has since been archived.

I came across this YouTube article this morning, which made me think of that thread because for years, I've been saying that I believed that streaming was a way for soaps to keep the original music in their episodes, while placating artists who could get a small share of ad revenue, depending on clicks, the way YouTube does it. A subscription service that offers something that no uploader on YouTube or Dailymotion can offer- selected complete storylines presented in crystal-clear HD. Does anybody think that some 80s singer whose song is no longer charting or selling otherwise would refuse the possibility to make a bit of change from the clicks? Actors may joke about paltry residuals, but they never refuse them.

Recently, the series Freaks And Geeks managed to do what had been said was impossible, put out a collection for their series with the music featured during the series' original broadcast run, and they used some pretty popular songs!

 

A streaming platform, similar to YouTube would also have more control over preventing piracy, which is the second most cited annoyance by musicians, as to why most don't allow permission for their music to be used beyond the original one-time run on a show. 

 

With some imagination, it is indeed possible to work out a solution, provided all parties have the will to do this. As a corporation, I don't believe P&G has the imagination or the will to do this, despite the genuine likelihood that it would be profitable for them. I guess they would prefer to just arbitrarily raise prices on their consumers for mostly mediocre products.

 

 

 

 

There's a link to avert the paywall by copying and pasting the URL:

 

https://archive.is

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Once upon a time there was a thread about soaps and the use of licensed popular music, which has since been archived.

I came across this YouTube article this morning, which made me think of that thread because for years, I've been saying that I believed that streaming was a way for soaps to keep the original music in their episodes, while placating artists who could get a small share of ad revenue, depending on clicks, the way YouTube does it. A subscription service that offers something that no uploader on YouTube or Dailymotion can offer- selected complete storylines presented in crystal-clear HD. Does anybody think that some 80s singer whose song is no longer charting or selling otherwise would refuse the possibility to make a bit of change from the clicks? Actors may joke about paltry residuals, but they never refuse them.

Recently, the series Freaks And Geeks managed to do what had been said was impossible, put out a collection for their series with the music featured during the series' original broadcast run, and they used some pretty popular songs!

 

A streaming platform, similar to YouTube would also have more control over preventing piracy, which is the second most cited annoyance by musicians, as to why most don't allow permission for their music to be used beyond the original one-time run on a show. 

 

With some imagination, it is indeed possible to work out a solution, provided all parties have the will to do this. As a corporation, I don't believe P&G has the imagination or the will to do this, despite the genuine likelihood that it would be profitable for them. I guess they would prefer to just arbitrarily raise prices on their consumers for mostly mediocre products.

 

 

 

 

There's a link to avert the paywall by copying and pasting the URL:

 

https://archive.is

It’s not so much any individual artist.  I remember and Indy film director a few years ago wrote a letter to two artists in the hopes of getting discounted song rights, one of them was Dolly Parton who agreed because she liked the story.  I wish I could remember what that film was, it was in the director’s commentary.

 

It’s the publishing companies and studio conglomerates that have been buying those rights for decades/already had them- they set prices that are too high.  Which is hilarious, because we know many soap couple themes in the 1980’s helped drive the sales of those songs.  GH used a lot of music and helped a few bands score bigger hits.

 

I hate corporate mentality!

 

Also some bands just flat out refuse.  When they released WKRP a couple of years ago, they got about 95% of the music cleared.  It made the box set expensive, but that show really needed the music.  Pink Floyd, who had allowed them to use it back in the day during the original broadcast flat out refused.  From what I read at the time, the dollar amount didn’t matter, they just did not license their music any more.

Edited by titan1978
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, titan1978 said:

It’s not so much any individual artist.  I remember and Indy film director a few years ago wrote a letter to two artists in the hopes of getting discounted song rights, one of them was Dolly Parton who agreed because she liked the story.  I wish I could remember what that film was, it was in the director’s commentary.

 

It’s the publishing companies and studio conglomerates that have been buying those rights for decades/already had them- they set prices that are too high.  Which is hilarious, because we know many soap couple themes in the 1980’s helped drive the sales of those songs.  GH used a lot of music and helped a few bands score bigger hits.

 

I hate corporate mentality!

 

Also some bands just flat out refuse.  When they released WKRP a couple of years ago, they got about 95% of the music cleared.  It made the box set expensive, but that show really needed the music.  Pink Floyd, who had allowed them to use it back in the day during the original broadcast flat out refused.  From what I read at the time, the dollar amount didn’t matter, they just did not license their music any more.

 

Which is why I suggested streaming, instead of selling boxed sets, which are more easily pirated and resold, which seems to be the bane of most artists. It's much more difficult for pirates to profit from any film or television show that is being streamed (even those who do aren't making profits since the days of KimDotCom), as opposed to making physical copies for sale. 

I agree that much depends upon the artist and more often, the company, but I still think the streaming vs. DVD is as important an issue in who gives permission to use their music.

 

An example: there was a film by an indie French director that was streamed by Netflix. The director really wanted a song by Rihanna, written by Sia, for one particular scene but didn't think she could get permission. Everyone told her that it was impossible. The director elected to try anyway. She wrote a letter to Rihanna and the record company, sending a clip with the pivotal scene. She was shocked when she heard back from Rihanna personally saying that she loved the scene and the record company gave this particular director permission. I saw the film and the scene was so beautiful it moved me to tears. 

What artist wouldn't want to be associated with such moving art?!

 

If it's junk, I could imagine musicians saying no. If the song has nothing to do with the scene or episode/movie, I can also see a musician saying no. A Deodorant brand once wanted to use "Don't Stand So Close To Me' and Sting/The Police said no (very understandable).

The music of Dolly Parton, unfortunately, has been known to have a history of being tied up by onerous contracts, especially songs from her early catalog. 

 

I do think streaming has proven to be a different ball game (Dolly Parton herself has a series that streams on Netflix using songs from her catalog) than DVDs, which is why I specifically said streaming, not DVD or even download--the aspect of piracy and resale looks too large for physical copies being sold, with the probability of being resold with no profits going to the artists or their record company and artists and their record companies hate this.

 

It would probably be easier to negotiate a song like "Nobody Loves Me Like You Do", which is rarely heard anywhere other than YouTube than a Phil Collins song. There is still the possibility of using generic music, which is not ideal but with today's technology is not as difficult and definitely not as expensive as it once would've been years ago. And that would be better than nothing, I think.

 

I still think it is short-sided thinking to let so much of that catalog of episodes go to waste. It's an especial shame in this time of peak reboots, revivals, reissues and reunions. Also, it is dumb to not even try a subscription streaming service or at least, a Peacock or Roku Originals type streaming service since they're quite profitable.

 

Then again, P&G is a mess of a company, so no surprise that they can't get anything together and because they are so messy, no other third party wants to partner with them the way the SoapClassics people once did.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Another Alan Locher Reunion this time with Mary Ellen Stuart and returning guest Melanie Smith. 

 

 

From his Facebook Page

Please join As the World Turns alum Mary Ellen Stuart (Frannie Hughes) and Melanie Smith (Emily Stewart) live in The Locher Room on Thursday, June 17th at 3 p.m. EST / 12 p.m. PST. These real-life moms, friends and actresses are coming together to share their Oakdale memories with all of us and so much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
On 6/9/2021 at 10:05 AM, DramatistDreamer said:

Then again, P&G is a mess of a company, so no surprise that they can't get anything together and because they are so messy, no other third party wants to partner with them the way the SoapClassics people once did.

I guess it bares repeating that asking P&G to stream soaps from their archive is like asking GM to remake the Oldsmobile.  The company got out of soap production not because of ratings or disinterest.  According to Alecia Swasy's book Soap Opera: the inside story of Proctor & Gamble, (which I encourage everyone to read) lawsuits over faulty testing of consumer products created such huge loses in revenue that it took down the company.  Toxic shock from tampons, not poorly written characters or insipid plots, caused the company to be insolvent.

 

Since the 1990's P&G product divisions have been sold multiple times.  I mean when was the last time you saw Prell shampoo or Dreft detergent that were staples of daytime commercials?  And once they stop producing the items that were intended to be sold on daytime TV, it negated the purpose of producing soap operas.  The company was negligent in testing the safety of their goods before bringing them to the marketplace.  This fact is indisputable and bares no relationship to a lack of desire to continue producing or distributing television dramas.   Those that were in charge of production are long gone, and there is no infrastructure in place to set up a streaming service.

 

Fans hold such a degree of ownership over soaps that it feels like corporate neglect when soap history is not respected.  However, much like Buicks. Oldmobiles, and the AMC Pacers, the company is no longer in the business of producing that type of content and the multiple new owners have no interest in getting back into that field.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Just now, j swift said:

Fans hold such a degree of ownership over soaps that it feels like corporate neglect when soap history is not respected.  However, much like Buicks. Oldmobiles, and the AMC Pacers, the company is no longer in the business of producing that type of content and the multiple new owners have no interest in getting back into that field.


It is entirely fair but it is still hard to comprehend why they couldn't at least sell it to someone who is in that business. Might or might not make a decent buck out of it - but it would at least be more than they are making by letting it rot out of sight doing nothing with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Community Activity

    1. 377

      General Hospital September 2021 Discussion Thread

    2. 428

      Days of Our Lives: September 2021 Discussion Thread

    3. 3,699

      Old/Classic B&B discussion&articles

    4. 17

      Soap opera Royalty

    5. 12,280

      As The World Turns Discussion Thread

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy