# CBS 2014 new dramas



## Doggie Bear (Jan 16, 2008)

I guess when you're the #1 network you feel like you shouldn't fix what's not broken, but CBS sure is showing a lack of imagination in the new dramas picked up for 2014-15:

"NCIS: New Orleans": another spin-off....

"Madam Secretary": derivative of Geena Davis' "Commander in Chief"?

"Stalker": like "CSI: Creepy"?

"Scorpion": this one has potential but sounds like "The Blacklist" crossed with "Revenge of the Nerds"

More detailed thoughts here on my blog entry.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

CBS also picked up the CSI spin-off with Patricia Arquette: "CSI: Cyber"


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> CBS also picked up the CSI spin-off with Patricia Arquette: "CSI: Cyber"


Really? I thought the back door pilot was aweful...


----------



## Hercules67 (Dec 8, 2007)

Is CSI: Cyber like "Intelligence"?

Why didn't they keep Intelligence instead?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Hercules67 said:


> Is CSI: Cyber like "Intelligence"?
> 
> Why didn't they keep Intelligence instead?


CSI brand is probably worth more. CBS is basically just going to be a network of spin offs.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I would like to watch some of those. But I don't see the point now. They will probably cancel most of them mid-way through the season. I'm not going to waste my time next season like I did this season with a bunch of new shows from all four networks. I can just watch some streaming shows instead. Or do some other things instead of watching their new shows next year that they will just cancel anyway.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Graymalkin said:


> CBS also picked up the CSI spin-off with Patricia Arquette: "CSI: Cyber"


It should have been called CSI: Medium. 

Spinoffs tend to be a long shot when it comes to TV shows. There have been very few of them that held a candle to the original series. Aside from Frasier and one or two others, the vast majority of them have been disasters, including the two previous CSI catastrophes. They both had a lot of viewers, but frankly they both sucked. They reminded me of the episode of Monk where he was a consultant for a CSI type of TV show and he debunked all of the story lines they used on the show as being utterly fictitious.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> It should have been called CSI: Medium.
> 
> Spinoffs tend to be a long shot when it comes to TV shows. There have been very few of them that held a candle to the original series. Aside from Frasier and one or two others, the vast majority of them have been disasters, including the two previous CSI catastrophes. They both had a lot of viewers, but frankly they both sucked. They reminded me of the episode of Monk where he was a consultant for a CSI type of TV show and he debunked all of the story lines they used on the show as being utterly fictitious.


Yes. NCIS is probably one of the biggest and most successful Spin Off. I never watched JAG though.

I haven't watched NCIS at all this season yet, although I have all the episodes saved.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

All I can say is thank god for Cable and the alternate media providers.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> Aside from Frasier and one or two others, the vast majority of them have been disasters, including the two previous CSI catastrophes. They both had a lot of viewers, but frankly they both sucked.


I bet CBS gets down on their knees every day and prays for disastrous suckage that runs 9-10 years...


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> It should have been called CSI: Medium.
> 
> ...


Well, I don't think we're in danger of a spin-off called CSI: Well Done.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> CSI brand is probably worth more. CBS is basically just going to be a network of spin offs.


@TedonTV on Twitter (he's an exec for USA network) tweeted this a couple days ago:



> If my math is right the 3 mega TV franchises L&O/CSI/NCIS will be responsible for 102 seasons of scripted TV across 12 series as of 14/15; Ted Linhart (@TedOnTV)




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/464933482335326210


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Spinoffs tend to be a long shot when it comes to TV shows. There have been very few of them that held a candle to the original series. Aside from Frasier and one or two others, the vast majority of them have been disasters, including the two previous CSI catastrophes. They both had a lot of viewers, but frankly they both sucked. They reminded me of the episode of Monk where he was a consultant for a CSI type of TV show and he debunked all of the story lines they used on the show as being utterly fictitious.


Unfortunately, you're looking at this as a discerning viewer and not as a TV exec. CBS only cares if the show has lots of viewers. If the quality sucks, but the viewers still come, that's exactly what they want. That's much more preferable than the opposite (high quality, low viewership).

But then that raises the question of who determines what counts as quality? Because if Show A has 15 million viewers per week and is panned by the critics and Show B has 4 million viewers per week but is a critical darling, you there are more people who think Show A is of a higher quality, despite what the critics may say.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Unfortunately, you're looking at this as a discerning viewer and not as a TV exec. CBS only cares if the show has lots of viewers. If the quality sucks, but the viewers still come, that's exactly what they want. That's much more preferable than the opposite (high quality, low viewership).
> 
> But then that raises the question of who determines what counts as quality? Because if Show A has 15 million viewers per week and is panned by the critics and Show B has 4 million viewers per week but is a critical darling, you there are more people who think Show A is of a higher quality, despite what the critics may say.


And, of course, the people who think Show A is higher quality will include _ADVERTISERS_, since they define "quality" as desirable eyeballs. (Yeah, yeah, this does not delve into the specific demographics of those eyeballs, which may be of interest in hawking products with a more narrow consumer base.)

Advertisers, by and large, do not give a crap about "critical acclaim." They really don't care if some artsy snob sniffs in derision over a show with derivative plots and wooden acting. The only criteria is that the show will reach their target audience.

High brow, so-called "quality" programming will be of interest to advertisers only if that show is an effective way to reach a certain set of buyers. Otherwise, they don't care.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

zalusky said:


> All I can say is thank god for Cable and the alternate media providers.


Agreed.

Nothing on that list looks interesting to me at all.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> It should have been called CSI: Medium.
> 
> Spinoffs tend to be a long shot when it comes to TV shows. There have been very few of them that held a candle to the original series. Aside from Frasier and one or two others, the vast majority of them have been disasters, including the two previous CSI catastrophes. They both had a lot of viewers, but frankly they both sucked. They reminded me of the episode of Monk where he was a consultant for a CSI type of TV show and he debunked all of the story lines they used on the show as being utterly fictitious.


Does CBS care if they sucked, as long as people are watching and they get decent ad rates for them? While I agree that most spinoffs suck, there are plenty of successes and they usually start up with higher ad rates, and generally are given a longer shot at success. For the networks, it's usually a worthwhile gamble because they will always get fans of those shows to watch for at least awhile.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Unfortunately, you're looking at this as a discerning viewer and not as a TV exec. CBS only cares if the show has lots of viewers. If the quality sucks, but the viewers still come, that's exactly what they want. That's much more preferable than the opposite (high quality, low viewership).
> 
> But then that raises the question of who determines what counts as quality? Because if Show A has 15 million viewers per week and is panned by the critics and Show B has 4 million viewers per week but is a critical darling, you there are more people who think Show A is of a higher quality, despite what the critics may say.


Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Only paid critics care about what's quality (in their eyes anyway), and mostly because they like to hear themselves "talk" and sound smarter than the average viewer.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> (..) if Show A has 15 million viewers per week and is panned by the critics and Show B has 4 million viewers per week but is a critical darling, you there are more people who think Show A is of a higher quality, despite what the critics may say.


No, that means that show A is more _popular_. Quality is not the same thing as popularity.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> No, that means that show A is more _popular_. Quality is not the same thing as popularity.


Says who? Some critic? My quality might be your junk and vice versa?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Says who?


Says who what?

I'm not saying that it's the opposite of quality---just that it's a different thing.

Why? Are you claiming that the words mean the same thing??!


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Graymalkin said:


> CBS also picked up the CSI spin-off with Patricia Arquette: "CSI: Cyber"


Blech, I love CSI but her appearance and the episode she was on was pretty damn bad. It would have been unwatchable without the regular CSI cast.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Says who what?
> 
> I'm not saying that it's the opposite of quality---just that it's a different thing.
> 
> Why? Are you claiming that the words mean the same thing??!


No, I'm claiming that one person's quality is another person's crap. Who's the judge and jury that makes something quality and something not? To advertisers, the show that has 15 million viewers is of higher quality than that of the show that has 4 million viewers. So I'm asking you, define "quality" and who makes the decision on what meets that criteria?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> No, I'm claiming that one person's quality is another person's crap. Who's the judge and jury that makes something quality and something not?


That would be me.

Duh.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I bet CBS gets down on their knees every day and prays for disastrous suckage that runs 9-10 years...


I just checked and couldn't believe that both CSI spinoffs ran for nine years apiece. What a total waste of bandwidth and air time.  The pigs must be flying high at CBS.

Quality is indeed, in the eye of the beholder. There is absolutely no other way to explain the proliferation of "reality" shows. What's ironic is that both of the CSI spinoffs strayed about as far from reality as you can possibly get. Everyone has their own ideas about what constitutes quality TV, but then a lot of people would rather watch Duck Dynasty and Survivor than Downton Abbey or The Good Wife. It's all a matter of taste, or in this case, the lack thereof.

Don't get me wrong because I'm not criticizing anyone for watching what they like. The problem is, most of the shows I prefer tend to have a smaller audience. It's kind of like comparing groups that would rather sit through an opera or an evening with the symphony vs. going to a Metallica concert. One is definitely of a higher quality but the other may be more popular, albeit of substantially less quality. TV viewers are no different.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> To advertisers, the show that has 15 million viewers is of higher quality than that of the show that has 4 million viewers.


No, the show that has 15M viewers is a better place to advertise (all else being equal). That doesn't make it a "better" show.

Perhaps the best measure of a show's quality would be not viewers or critics, but judgement by peers in the industry. So arguably a show's quality can be measured by its Emmy nominations (and not by how many People's Choice awards it gets).

So that would suggest that _Homeland_ is a better show than _Beauty and the Beast_ (even if advertisers spent infinitely more on ads for _BatB_).


----------



## Doggie Bear (Jan 16, 2008)

mr.unnatural said:


> I just checked and couldn't believe that both CSI spinoffs ran for nine years apiece. What a total waste of bandwidth and air time.  The pigs must be flying high at CBS.


Actually, I think "CSI: Miami" lasted 10 seasons. And while I wouldn't call it a "quality" show, my wife and I find "CSI: Miami" hilarious to watch in reruns (or on DVDs borrowed from the library). There's a TiVo TV Talk thread somewhere here asking "is CSI: Miami a comedy?," which is a dead-on critique. David Caruso's scene-chewing is so over-the-top that you can't help but be mesmerized. I make it a game to try to come up with a better one-liner than the one that he typically delivers at the end of the teaser.

So, um, not quality, but definitely entertainment (even if not in the spirit intended by the producers).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> No, the show that has 15M viewers is a better place to advertise (all else being equal). That doesn't make it a "better" show.


Ultimately, what is the purpose of the TV industry? It's to sell advertising. Thus, the show that brings in higher ad rates because it has more viewers is a higher-quality show as far as the TV exec is concerned.

And you've clearly got 15 million viewers who have decided that Show A is of a higher quality, at least as far as their tastes and time are concerned. Who is to say that their opinions are less valuable than the opinions of the 4 million who think Show B is better?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Thus, the show that brings in higher ad rates because it has more viewers is a higher-quality show as far as the TV exec is concerned.


Nope. I don't think TV execs confuse quality with "good advertising vehicle". Yes, they're concerned about where to advertise, but I don't for a minute think that's how even they define quality.



DevdogAZ said:


> And you've clearly got 15 million viewers who have decided that Show A is of a higher quality, at least as far as their tastes and time are concerned.


Just because someone watches a show doesn't mean they think it's a quality show. Again, popularity (even for an individual) is not the same thing as quality.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> It's kind of like comparing groups that would rather sit through an opera or an evening with the symphony vs. going to a Metallica concert. One is definitely of a higher quality but the other may be more popular, albeit of substantially less quality. TV viewers are no different.





mr.unnatural said:


> It's all a matter of taste, or in this case, the lack thereof.


Not criticizing? Sure doesn't sound that way. Metallica has been honored to work with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. Apparently they found the band of significant quality.



Amnesia said:


> Perhaps the best measure of a show's quality would be not viewers or critics, but judgement by peers in the industry. So arguably a show's quality can be measured by its Emmy nominations (and not by how many People's Choice awards it gets).


Metallica has won 9 Grammy's out of 18 nominations. But according to Mr. Unnatural, they are lesser quality.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

How many CSIs are still on the air?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mattack said:


> How many CSIs are still on the air?


Right now, it's just the original. Next season will be the original and CSI: Cyber.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

OK, thanks, I guess I should check imdb.. I thought two were still on the air.. I think NY didn't survive as long as Miami.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation started in Fall 2000 and is currently in its 14th season.

CSI: Miami ran for ten seasons. It started in Fall 2002 and ended in April 2012.

CSI: NY ran for nine seasons. It started in Fall 2004 and ended in February 2013.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I just don't understand how the new show is a "CSI"...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> No, the show that has 15M viewers is a better place to advertise (all else being equal). That doesn't make it a "better" show.
> 
> Perhaps the best measure of a show's quality would be not viewers or critics, but judgement by peers in the industry. So arguably a show's quality can be measured by its Emmy nominations (and not by how many People's Choice awards it gets).
> 
> So that would suggest that _Homeland_ is a better show than _Beauty and the Beast_ (even if advertisers spent infinitely more on ads for _BatB_).


And we all know that Emmy Awards are decided JUST on quality  All these awards are decided by politics as much as "quality".

Sorry, I don't buy into something being quality just because someone tells me it is. I'm not that kinda sheep.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Ultimately, what is the purpose of the TV industry? It's to sell advertising. Thus, the show that brings in higher ad rates because it has more viewers is a higher-quality show as far as the TV exec is concerned.
> 
> And you've clearly got 15 million viewers who have decided that Show A is of a higher quality, at least as far as their tastes and time are concerned. Who is to say that their opinions are less valuable than the opinions of the 4 million who think Show B is better?


Exactly.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Nope. I don't think TV execs confuse quality with "good advertising vehicle". Yes, they're concerned about where to advertise, but I don't for a minute think that's how even they define quality.
> 
> Just because someone watches a show doesn't mean they think it's a quality show. Again, popularity (even for an individual) is not the same thing as quality.


And just because YOU say it's quality, doesn't make it so, or a TV critic, or a TV insider.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Not criticizing? Sure doesn't sound that way. Metallica has been honored to work with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. Apparently they found the band of significant quality.
> 
> Metallica has won 9 Grammy's out of 18 nominations. But according to Mr. Unnatural, they are lesser quality.


I expected to get some blow back on the post. The point was to compare one type of music (heavy metal) to another (classical) in the extreme sense to illustrate a point (i.e., quality is in the eye of the beholder).  I could have used any other heavy metal or punk band to make the point. Metallica just happened to be the first one that popped into my head. Although, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a fan. Then again, quality is in the eye of the beholder (or, in this case, the ear  ).

When I checked epguides.com for the number of seasons for both CSI NY and Miami, I apparently did not scroll down far enough to notice the 10th season for Miami. My mistake. The show was definitely laughable and much to the point I was making about it.

FWIW, I've been known to watch shows that I would not necessarily consider high quality. To me, good quality reflects a higher standard of writing, directing, acting, and production values. High production values only come into play if the other variables work. I've seen a lot of shows that had great production values, but the writing, directing, and/or acting was subpar.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Not criticizing? Sure doesn't sound that way. Metallica has been honored to work with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. Apparently they found the band of significant quality.
> 
> Metallica has won 9 Grammy's out of 18 nominations. But according to Mr. Unnatural, they are lesser quality.


in fact, the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra thinks so highly of Metallica that they've decided to stop playing all Mozart and Beethoven pieces and do only songs from Metallica /sarcasm

do you honestly think people will playing Metallica 200 years from now ?

BREAKING: The Juilliard School has decided all auditions must be preformed using a guitar and playing One by Metallica !

I've been to Metallica concerts. 
I MUCH prefer Metallica to most classical music 
but I know that is my taste, but objectively, classical music is better


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Steveknj said:


> Sorry, I don't buy into something being quality just because someone tells me it is. I'm not that kinda sheep.


then what kind of sheep are you ?

you don't pay any attention to amazon reviews, yelp reviews, foodnetwork recommendations ?
consumer reports magazine ?
america's test kitchen product reviews ?

when I watch an episode of "the best thing I ever ate" on the foodnetwork, and see something that looks good (even if its something I would have considered trying before) then I take note, I write the name of the restaurant down and plan on visiting if I'm ever in the area

when I went to Beijing I didn't know anything about Chinese food, so I put my trust in the university students I was hanging out with 
they took me to some great places and I tasted great authentic Chinese food

how abut video games ?
I'm a big fan of mmos, I was very excited for Elder Scrolls Online, but after reading the reviews I decided not to waste my money because I read so much about the lack of quality

how about electronics ? 
I was looking for a new tv, first thing I did was go to newegg.com and consumer reprorts and read the reviews

I build myself a new computer every few years, I always go to newegg and anandtech and tomshardware and read the reviews and recommendations first

I've never been disappointed 
that's the kind of sheep I am

what kind are you who doesn't believe something is quality just because someone says so ?
the kind who wanders around aimlessly ?
no guidance except your own ?
flipping channels, looking aimlessly for something worth watching ... on a tv you spent hundreds on because you personally have tested all makes and models ?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jamesl said:


> then what kind of sheep are you ?
> 
> you don't pay any attention to amazon reviews, yelp reviews, foodnetwork recommendations ?
> consumer reports magazine ?
> ...


Because while I do read all those things, and take them into account, at the end of the day, it's my opinion that counts, not theirs. And read all of those reviews and many conflict. Who's right? I am, because I decide which is right for me.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

jamesl said:


> but I know that is my taste, but objectively, classical music is better


Sorry, I can't agree with that statement. I don't think one can really make an objective claim that one form of music is "better" than the other.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

gschrock said:


> Sorry, I can't agree with that statement. I don't think one can really make an objective claim that one form of music is "better" than the other.


Classical music is generally better composed and performed than most contemporary music. Musicians tend to require much longer training and hours of practice to perform any composition properly as compared to your average guitar hack. OTOH, there are a lot of outstanding guitarists that I'd put in the same class as many other classical performers.

I can definitely say it's better in a plethora of ways. However, it's not necessarily the kind of music I prefer to listen to all of the time. I'm more of a classic rock listener.

It's not really a question of what's better but rather what's more preferable. Every generation has their own style of music that they identify with, although I have an extremely difficult time trying to understand why any generation would want to identify with Hip Hop or Rap. I guess I'm just getting old.

Classical music transcends the generations and will stand out long after any current style fades into oblivion.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I expected to get some blow back on the post. The point was to compare one type of music (heavy metal) to another (classical) in the extreme sense to illustrate a point (i.e., quality is in the *eye of the beholder*). I could have used any other heavy metal or punk band to make the point. *Metallica* just happened to be the first one that popped into my head. Although, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a fan. Then again, quality is in the *eye of the beholder* (or, in this case, the ear  ).


Are you doing that on purpose?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> And just because YOU say it's quality, doesn't make it so, or a TV critic, or a TV insider.


Of course.

But on the other hand, I know what quality is NOT. Is it NOT the same thing as popularity.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

jamesl said:


> in fact, the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra thinks so highly of Metallica that they've decided to stop playing all Mozart and Beethoven pieces and do only songs from Metallica /sarcasm
> 
> do you honestly think people will playing Metallica 200 years from now ?
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's exactly what I said.  Stick with the facts. Or keep trolling, you're choice. Popularity =/ quality.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Ultimately, what is the purpose of the TV industry? It's to sell advertising...


That's not as true as it used to be, depending on how you define "the TV industry".

For example, I don't think you can exclude HBO from that, but how long are the commercial breaks in Game of Thrones?

TMC fills time between movies with promos for stuff you can buy from them, but they don't interrupt Gone With The Wind every 15 or 20 minutes so that Ford can try to sell you a pickup truck or so that Kraft can try to sell you some cheese. They make their money by people paying to have them as part of the cable package, even if it's part of the package in part because of bundling.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Doggie Bear said:


> derivative of Geena Davis' "Commander in Chief"?


That was actually a very good show. I watched it within the past few years (from Netflix). Shame it only lasted 1 season.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Are you doing that on purpose?


LOL. I actually had no idea that was a Metallica title.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Classical music is generally better composed and performed than most contemporary music. Musicians tend to require much longer training and hours of practice to perform any composition properly as compared to your average guitar hack. OTOH, there are a lot of outstanding guitarists that I'd put in the same class as many other classical performers.
> 
> I can definitely say it's better in a plethora of ways. However, it's not necessarily the kind of music I prefer to listen to all of the time. I'm more of a classic rock listener.
> 
> ...


As does quite a bit of pop music over time. Stephen Foster, many of the Jazz greats, Gershwin,The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Johnny Cash, are among those off the top of my head that will stand out through time. And probably dozens more. Only classical fans think that it's the only music that will last the test of time. And it still doesn't mean the quality is any better than the greatest of guitar riffs.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Of course.
> 
> But on the other hand, I know what quality is NOT. Is it NOT the same thing as popularity.


But it could be. Quality does not equal popularity but popularity COULD equal quality. To advertisers, it IS the same thing.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> As does quite a bit of pop music over time. Stephen Foster, many of the Jazz greats, Gershwin,The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Johnny Cash, are among those off the top of my head that will stand out through time. And probably dozens more. Only classical fans think that it's the only music that will last the test of time. And it still doesn't mean the quality is any better than the greatest of guitar riffs.


No real argument there. Whether any of the genres of music or artists you mentioned will still be listened to centuries from now is anybody's guess. Classical has essentially achieved immortality up to this point. The point is whether the others will still be popular centuries from now and not just to a niche audience.

FYI, most diehard audiophiles (i.e., those who seek the Holy Grail of accurate sound reproduction via esoteric hardware and software) use classical music and acoustic instruments and vocals for determining the quality of sound reproduction. Only instruments that are unamplified and natural can provide the reference sound required for critical listening. Electronic music is already artificial so there's no real way to judge the quality. Anyone can generate good sounds using a synthesizer or other electronic instrument. Problem is, there's no actual reference by which it can be judged with regards to sound quality.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Any chance we can put the music discussion to rest in the *CBS New Dramas* thread???

This is NOT a TBBT thread, after all.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

I think the majority of the CSI fans think that the science of the show is literally accurate. My 76 year old father is a huge fan and even watches the reruns over and over. He made a comment while watching an episode when they found some guy by pinging his IP. "It's amazing what they can find out". 

I don't think the writing, dialogue, or acting is anywhere near smart.

But they not making TV JUST for me. So Dad, enjoy your incredibly dumb show.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

hairyblue said:


> I think the majority of the CSI fans think that the science of the show is literally accurate. My 76 year old father is a huge fan and even watches the reruns over and over. He made a comment while watching an episode when they found some guy by pinging his IP. "It's amazing what they can find out".
> 
> I don't think the writing, dialogue, or acting is anywhere near smart.
> 
> But they not making TV JUST for me. So Dad, enjoy your incredibly dumb show.


Your Dad isn't the only one that thinks CSI and similar shows are real. You'd be amazed at how many criminal trial jurors ask for all sorts of absurd forensic evidence during a trial because they think that's how things are done in real life.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

When I was considered as a juror, they sent me a letter telling me that there were many investigation/law shows on tv. They reminded me that these shows are not real.

So I guess there are a lot of jurors wanting this insane evidence.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Doggie Bear said:


> I guess when you're the #1 network you feel like you shouldn't fix what's not broken, but CBS sure is showing a lack of imagination in the new dramas picked up for 2014-15:
> 
> "NCIS: New Orleans": another spin-off....
> 
> ...


Just found out that Madam Secretary is Tea Leoni, so even though she won't be showing off her Lucille Ball style comedy chops, I'm still in like Flynn.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jamesl said:


> in fact, the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra thinks so highly of Metallica that they've decided to stop playing all Mozart and Beethoven pieces and do only songs from Metallica /sarcasm
> 
> do you honestly think people will playing Metallica 200 years from now ?
> 
> ...


I like both. Although I like pretty much all types of music. They each have their own merits.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

hairyblue said:


> When I was considered as a juror, they sent me a letter telling me that there were many investigation/law shows on tv. They reminded me that these shows are not real.
> 
> So I guess there are a lot of jurors wanting this insane evidence.


Like most TV it is not based on the real world. Unfortunately many people take TV as fact for some reason.


----------



## The Spud (Aug 28, 2002)

unitron said:


> Just found out that Madam Secretary is Tea Leoni, so even though she won't be showing off her Lucille Ball style comedy chops, I'm still in like Flynn.


Totally in for this. I loves me some Tea Leoni.


----------

