Wednesday, February 24, 2010

More Spoiler-Alert

United States Ski TeamImage via Wikipedia

At the end of the first season of "The Osbournes", Kelly and Jack are riding in the back seat when they drive by McDonald's and Jack suddenly implores Kelly to look, the McRib is back! When his sister is unimpressed, Jack ends up telling Kelly it's the little things in life, like Bode Miller winning the gold medal in the Super-Combined.

In today's "New York Times", there's a compendium of stories about people who've lost their jobs during the recession, who've faced financial difficulty and have had to make dramatic turns to survive, if that. There's also a piece by Thomas Friedman about a town that charges $300 for a 911 call. Nothing's free anymore. We live in a world of diminished expectations. We're being nickel and dimed to death, just start filling the parking meter to get up to speed.

Then there are the trivialities. The product that suddenly breaks with no warning, that is necessary to your everyday life. The traffic jam that makes you late for an appointment. But it's the little things that ultimately put a smile on your face, that keep you going.

Because nothing is big enough to last. No gold medal, no sexual encounter, no momentary event can keep you going forever, in order to remain optimistic you must experience a steady stream of uppers, that may not make you stand up and say hell yeah, but will certainly put a smile on your face.

That's the human condition. In the face of adversity, you focus on the good things. You hop from one good thing to another, like crossing a river by jumping from stone to stone.

I've been following Bode Miller since the last century. When he started producing good results on K2, which hadn't made a decent racing ski since the 80's. Bode switched to Rossignol and won two medals in Salt Lake, unexpected by anybody but the devoted. Hell, I'll always remember him putting his ass to the snow and STILL winning. Because victory isn't always pretty. Only in Hollywood do people believe that perfection is the way to riches. It's our imperfections that make us lovable.

But Bode was pretty perfect in a sport that denies this. He won races in all five events, the World Cup, even skied an entire run at the World Championships on one ski after losing the other. He was not a machine, but a human being. Who could laugh. Something that's been absent from the U.S. Ski Team since the days of Bob Beattie, who believed only by overconditioning could his charges triumph.

Jimmy Heuga and Billy Kidd succeeded, but we never had a dominant racer until Bode. Someone the Europeans feared in every discipline.

But the Ski Team was like America. Conformity comes before success. And Bode didn't conform.

Eventually they parted ways, and Bode went on to further triumph, winning the World Cup again after the disaster in Torino.

There's no use revisiting it. We can comb through historical details, but all I can say is in Turin America was suddenly paying attention, and Bode didn't deliver. And America is all about winners.

But today Bode Miller delivered.

He came from behind, three quarters of a second out.

As Bode's aged, he's become a speed skier, he needed to win the downhill portion of the Super-Combined to stay competitive. I couldn't follow on the Web. Although he triumphed in the tight-turning slalom earlier in his career, Bode was now famous for not even finishing. He'd have to push and he'd probably ski out.

But that's not what happened. Bode pushed and won! He put it all on the line and blew them all away! I turned on my computer and there he was, smiling in triumph.

And I let out a yell, I smiled, a day fraught with problems became sunny and bright, despite the rain pouring down.

Bode never let me down.

But now he proved to everybody else that he was a winner. That you didn't have to be the smiling idiot of Jackson Browne's "Pretender" in order to succeed, going for the gold to placate everybody but yourself.

Ski racing is a very individual sport. But Bode's triumph today was not singular. It was for all of us. It showed us you can come back from adversity, not by denying yourself, by apologizing, by admitting your mistakes, but by doubling down, staying in the game and showing everybody what you've got.

Don't operate with one hand behind your back. Put it all out there. Let your freak flag fly. We want you. Rough edges and all.



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, February 19, 2010

Olympics Spoiler Alert

DE: Julia Mancuso während der Startnummernausl...Image via Wikipedia

Julia Mancuso's dad went to prison for dealing dope.

Now if that ain't an American story...

Too hot for the American press.

Not that Ms. Mancuso cared. Hell, she even posed as a Lange girl. Check her out here:

http://www.thesnowjunkies.com/2009/11/06/vintage-lange-girl-gallery/

But there was no backlash, unlike with Lindsey Vonn's bathing suit photos in "Sports Illustrated". Because no one was paying attention.

Now everyone's paying attention. Because Julia medaled again today. Ascending to the podium after fully and speedily executing the slalom portion of the Super Combined, difficult for someone who focuses on speed events like the Downhill and Super-G.

I'm just saying there was no hype about Julia Mancuso prior to the Olympics. Hell, she was injured last year, she was shunted aside in favor of America's sweetheart, Lindsey Vonn. Who DNF'ed in the slalom portion of today's event.

The media loves a pre-delineated story. But real life ain't that way. You've got to play to find out the results. Which are oftentimes surprising.

Truth is stranger than fiction?

Absolutely.

Used to be the mainstream media controlled the narrative.

Now, online, the picture is much hazier. You've got full time fans defining the story for their brethren, and then when the occasional lurkers weigh in, they show their lack of knowledge.

So let's say Lindsey Vonn doesn't win another medal. She probably will, she should triumph in the Super-G. Odds are much lower in GS, especially slalom. But let's say Lindsey does not. And Julia Mancuso ends up with her two silver medals. Does she become the story? Can she become America's sweetheart?

Or does the fact that her hair veers towards brunette instead of blond and she didn't grow up with all the advantages mean that we can't rally around her?

P.S. I found out Lindsey DNF'ed via Twitter. Google News had nothing. nbcolympics.com wasn't even up to date. And up to date is how we like our information. Twitter might not be the final answer, but if you want to know what's going on right now, it's the go to site.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Hurt Gorillaz

The Who, original line up, performing in Chica...Image via Wikipedia

In the sixties, cars only lasted a few years. Assuming your automobile did not need repairs when it rolled off the truck, like the Chevy Lance's father purchased that had no reverse pin, or the Chrysler my father bought that caught fire on the way home from the dealership, it was only a matter of time before you ended up at the gas station, where there was a mechanic to change belts and perform other surgeries required to keep your motor running. And although we occasionally hear of cars overheating on the Grapevine, the needle on most cars' temperature gauge barely moves. Despite Toyota's recent woes, cars, if not quite bulletproof, are expected not to break. You can drive Hondas for 200,000 miles trouble-free. Automobiles may be expensive, but you can keep the same machine for a decade, quite happily.

But those days of the lame Vista-Cruisers were half a century ago.

Let me put that in perspective. When my family owed lame cars in the sixties, they'd only been making cars for sixty years. Now, they've been making them for fifty years more! Those cars of yore were only halfway through the life cycle. Those pieces of shit were a long time ago!

Just like classic rock.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I like classic rock as much as the next guy. I saw the Who perform "Tommy" at the Fillmore East. Did you?

But that was back in '69.

And that was forty years ago.

And now it's 2010.

Yup, TWENTY Ten. So many years have gone by that we now know how to pronounce the year, we're in the teens in case you weren't paying attention. Hell, no one could come up with a name for the first decade of the twenty first century until it was over, and if you call them the "aughts" now, you'll still get mostly blank stares.

In other words, it's time for new music.

Let's be clear. Kids know nothing. They listen to the hit parade before their pubic hair grows in. If you're that young, or a parent subjected to Radio Disney, you know a lot of current material. Most of which will curdle the milk of an oldster. But oldsters want new music. Something more than the bland Susan Boyle, who proved that we're willing to lay our money down, if you just tell us what to listen to.

And that's the big problem. Not so much the lack of good music, but the inability to find it, to connect with it.

Which brings us to the Gorillaz.

Not a big fan of Damon, not a bit fan of the band. But searching for something new on the satellite yesterday, I heard "Stylo".

Have you heard this track?

Dial it up here:

http://www.bu2z.com/video/gorillaz-stylo.html

It sounds like Kraftwerk is playing in a roller disco while a hip-hop deejay is spinning vinyl in the background, all the while an MC toasting above.

This is great. Not phenomenal. Not Gnarls Barkley "Crazy" stupendous, but extremely fulfilling. Because it just FEELS GOOD!

Great music is like pornography. To paraphrase that Supreme Court justice, YOU KNOW IT WHEN YOU HEAR IT!

We can argue over the disco roots, can decipher and analyze the lyrics, but the key point is you feel so fucking good listening to this song.

Which was leaked a month ago.

Yes, I'm going to be inundated with e-mail from hipsters, telling me I'm late to the party. I could make excuses, say that I knew the song had leaked, I just hadn't listened to it, but that's not the point. The point is hipsterdom is irrelevant. Now we're all hipsters. Deep into our own niches. And don't tell me your niche is better than mine. That's so twentieth century. But how am I going to find out what's good in your niche when I don't even have enough time to explore my own?

Quite a headscratcher. But when I discover something as good as "Stylo", I'm hungry like the wolf for more good new music. I started pushing all the satellite buttons. Which is how I discovered Hurt's "Fighting Tao".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGlhTotwaeM

It's a funny thing about heavy music. You're drawn in, you dial it up because you're alienated and angry, but when you listen to it all your problems fall away, you feel happy and powerful.

Tell me "Fighting Tao" is derivative. Tell me it's akin to Tool. Even go deep and say Hurt changed its sound after the band lost their major label deal. All I'll say is as an angry fuck, music like "Fighting Tao" is the aural rabbit hole I like to dive down into not only to recharge my batteries, but energize me. Anthemic rock, beholden to few restrictions, long-haired guys exploring in their basements with their amps turned up to 11.

But, ironically, it's the soft passages that make "Fighting Tao" so good, juxtaposed against the full force screaming.

Somewhere in my memory bank, I'm aware of Hurt. But if I've ever heard any of their music prior to last night, I couldn't pick it out of a lineup. But when I heard it long after dark on Octane, I couldn't change the channel. I was waiting for it to get bad, but it never did, it only got better.

You get to a point where you can't live in the past.

Then again, when the present becomes too confusing, that's where you retreat. That's what the NFL did. And nostalgia can be comforting. But it's not as exciting as discovering something new that touches your soul, that shines like an exquisite diamond in between your ears.



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

War In The Music Industry

Image representing Amazon as depicted in Crunc...Image via CrunchBase

There's a war going on in the music business and rights holders are afraid they're going to lose.

The public is clueless, it barely sees the battles while it steals music. But the future is subscription, which doesn't involve only music, but products ancillary thereto, maybe even completely virtual.

If you've been following the Amazon/Macmillan story you know that the whole e-book pricing system has been affected by the iPad. There's a shift to the agency model, wherein Apple gets 30% and renders the remaining 70% to publishers. Unlike Amazon, Apple doesn't really care what price books are sold for, they're in the hardware business. In other words, they want to sell iPads. Whereas Amazon wanted to sell e-books below cost to increase the company's market share, hopefully into a dominant position.

That game's up.

But the fascinating conclusion is that the winner is Apple. You need an iPad to read that book. You're not going to buy a Kindle, certainly if the books cost the same, the Kindle just isn't a good deal. As long as e-books are not priced exorbitantly, Apple wins. And the publishers, smiling triumphantly, don't even know what hit them.

What hit them? Well, a writer can make the same 30/70 deal directly with Amazon, the online merchant already announced that. And with publishers signing fewer authors, conceding the landscape to upstarts, it appears to be just like the music business, wherein the major labels lost control.

The labels feel they've lost control to Apple. And they don't want that to happen again. So they're fighting Spotify, not even knowing what this platform and other similar companies are selling. They're not selling music, that's just the come on, they're selling the accoutrements, not only concert tickets but social networking, they're creating an ecosystem, that will rain down dollars.

There's a fascinating story in today's "Los Angeles Times" entitled "Free Online Games Moving Up A Level" (entitled "Digital Sales Poised As Game Changer" online): http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-games9-2010feb09,0,5565866.story

Two video game publishers are contrasted. One that sells discs and another that gives the games away for free. The seller of physical media went out of business. The virtual goods company is thriving.

Don't think about this as giving away music for free. Think bigger. If you can get someone hooked, what else can you sell them?

Start with a subscription. To an online video game service. Maybe $15 a month for World Of Warcraft. That's just like your ten dollar a month subscription to Spotify. Or your five dollar a month subscription to MOG.

But let's start with Spotify. In every market the company has launched, the service is free. But if you want it on your mobile device, you've got to pay. Not everybody wants this portability, but you'd be surprised how many do. And will in the future. Because by paying the monthly fee, you don't only get the ability to tote your tracks around, but knowledge of what your friends are listening to, access to the band, a first crack at concert tickets, maybe even virtual concerts.

You start with free. That's the come on. Just like with video games. Then you sell bits and pieces, not music, but items ancillary to music, the ability to go to a party, maybe even virtual. What works is unknown, but the first step is getting people hooked. If you saw how much money is made in virtual items online, clothes for avatars, ability to unlock doors for exclusive access, you'd be stunned. This barely exists for music, because rights holders are afraid. They believe in selling physical music, an album at a time. And they're so busy protecting that model, they're going out of business. Hell, just ask EMI. Instead of realizing it starts with the music, and instead of focusing on people stealing it, the question is how can you entice them to pay for it?

Certainly not by castigating them for theft, by threatening them with prosecution for copyright infringement. Instead, you entice people, giving them a free taste, just like a drug dealer, and then sell them everything surrounding the music. You can't steal an experience. And if we make your life easier...

That's Apple's plan. To get you to overpay for what you didn't even know you wanted. In the future, it won't be about owning music, it will be about being a member of the club, of the tribe. With evidence of how long you've been a fan, what shows you've gone to, the number of times you've spun each and every track. People will PAY to play in this arena, to publish evidence of their devotion, to compare and bond with others.

This is the future.

But the rights holders abhor the future.

Techies, people of the age the labels have fired or never hired, know all this. But they won't get involved in music because they just can't get the rights.

The future of music will look nothing like it does today. It won't be about ownership, it will be about belonging. You can play the video game at home, alone, or you can go online, where you're a member of the club, connecting with millions. You've got to pay for this experience. Which gamers do gladly.

The future is imminent. But only if the rights holders get out of the way. Only if innovation is unlocked. Copyright shouldn't be abandoned, but it's blocking the future. Just like rap blew up by stealing old tracks, new music platforms will be built on sampling the wares of rights holders. And like the owner of those old sampled records, the key is to say YES, to get on the bandwagon, to collect some of that new money. Instead of arguing with Activision over Guitar Hero license rates as the franchise fades away and doesn't radiate. Stay two steps ahead. Or face extinction.



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Saving Taylor Swift

American country musician Taylor Swift perform...Image via Wikipedia

"I took a chance, I took a shot
And you might think I'm bulletproof, but I'm not"

Silence. It's always worst in a crisis. Just ask Tiger Woods.

Johnson & Johnson wrote the book on this, with Tylenol. Remember the capsules with cyanide? No? Proves the point. J&J admitted fault, even though the company was not responsible, executed a fix and life went on.

It's a veritable conflagration. Not only online. But in the mainstream news.

The "New York Times" took a swing at Taylor Swift, they said her singing was "painfully out of tune".

In an article on the Oscars, Patrick Goldstein of the "Los Angeles Times" excoriated her: "Even though Swift was the big winner Sunday night, she has largely been derided by critics and is viewed as a youthful enthusiasm, not a serious artist. (If you watched the show, you may have noticed that while she has lovely hair, she can barely sing.)"

The non-music outlet known as MTV is riding Swift's performance to ratings just like the channel rode the derided "Jersey Shore" controversy. Even taking the unprecedented action of printing blowback from haters: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1631150/20100203/swift__taylor.jhtml

And what do we get from Taylor Swift's camp? She's in Australia. Scott Borchetta bit back lamely once, and then was indignant in the "Tennessean": http://blogs.tennessean.com/tunein/2010/02/01/taylor-swift-has-mixed-reviews-from-grammy-night/

"You could write a book on how
To ruin someone's perfect day"

This is all wrong. You don't bite back this way, you're contrite, go on the offensive by endearing yourself to consumers.

Taylor Swift should not be hiding Down Under, she should jet back to the U.S., do "Oprah", reveal secrets, do a town hall... You know major news outlets are interested, because this is a major story. Except maybe to those in the eye of the hurricane, where the calm does not reflect the winds outside.

Scott Swift, Taylor's dad, I know you're reading this. You're a smart guy. I know you're protective of your daughter, I know you believe in her, why don't you help her?

Call Larry Solters. Call another crisis publicity agent. To manage the story. Because I'd say you've lost control of it, no, I'd say you never had a hold on it, and it's time you did.

Everything's got to come out. Honesty is the best policy in a crisis. We're a forgiving country. Tell the backstory, the true story, of how Scott spent so much to make Taylor happen. Not as a tale of millions spent, but as a father doing everything to make his daughter's dream come true. Release video of Taylor singing at twelve. Show the arc of her development. Make the Grammy appearance part of her development. Instead of the end of the story...

This is serious business. Just look at John Edwards. The aforementioned Tiger Woods. There are people who specialize in handling these crises. Hire one. Because the team in control of Taylor Swift's image is woefully overmatched. I wouldn't call it a public relations offensive but an explanation, a bringing of the public into Taylor Swift's heart. Don't throw stones at your enemies, hug them tight, by admitting your faults and showing that you're reasonable, and dedicated to solving the problem.

"I take a step back, let you go
I told you I'm not bulletproof
Now you know"

I'm sure Taylor's hurt. Hell, if she's this upset about a boy in "Tell Me Why", imagine what it's like breaking up with your career?

And when you get dumped, your friends rally 'round. They'll rally 'round Taylor if she cries, tells how she tried, dedicates herself to doing better in the future and allows the public to embrace her.

"Tell Me Why": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOxidzqhUwA


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sunday, February 7, 2010

The Grammy's

American country musician Taylor Swift perform...Image via Wikipedia

There was an interesting piece in the "New York Times" asking whether it was more important to win a Grammy or appear on the telecast. In other words, do you remember who won Album of the Year or do you remember Pink flying high in the sky? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/arts/music/29grammys.html)

For those expressing displeasure with the Grammy telecast, I remind you that we no longer live in a monoculture. It was a very brief period, two decades at most, when mainstream and alternative merged, when MTV dictated the hits and radio fell in line behind. But now, you get to choose what you want to listen to from a plethora of choices. So if you tune in a telecast like this you're dumbfounded. Who are these people? Does anybody really care?

Beyonce prancing. Black Eyed Peas marching. Eminem and two guys you've never heard of ranting. Is this music? What kind of hole have we fallen down?

Relax. To say the Grammys are a reflection of music today is akin to saying what airs on NBC defines America. It doesn't. People have more passion for niche channels like Discovery than those trying to appeal to everybody networks.

But there's a limited channel universe. And the networks bought up the niche channels. What's going on in the music business?

Chaos.

What's ironic is that NARAS was the ultimate niche operation. What I mean by this was there was a category for every genre, it delved deep into music some were passionate about, but few cared about, which is exactly what's happening today. But the TV show is the opposite of this. With fewer awards given and only the most mainstream acts featured. Now is the time for NARAS to flourish. But beholden to the old major label structure that is crumbling, NARAS is teetering too. Overspending while membership is declining. Isn't this like trying to get people to buy albums on CD when you can cherry-pick the desirable singles on Napster?

But leading would require vision. And NARAS has none.

But who gives a shit about NARAS anyway.

I'll say that I was impressed with the Michael Jackson tribute. No, not his kids, who certainly aren't his biologically, and acquitted themselves quite well, but the performances... Everybody could sing! Could almost make you a Celine Dion fan. Especially after experiencing Taylor Swift.

How awful was she?

Dreadful.

"Fearless" deserved to win Album of the Year. I was glad it did. Scuttlebutt was it was DMB's year, but to say "GrooGrux" is good is to be a tie-dyed hippie hanging out in the parking lot before a show that features great playing but mediocre material. "GrooGrux" sold to a small coterie, most people don't care. But Taylor Swift is as mainstream as you can get. Triumphing in two formats. Speaking her truth to her audience. I love "Fearless". You can play it from start to finish, again and again, it's honest. But last night's performance...

Do you remember Billy Squier's pink video? Which killed his career overnight? Take a peek: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR0j7sModCI What was a hard rocker doing prancing around in a pink tank top? What was a neophyte artist doing sharing a stage with a legend who made it before auto-tune, before studio tricks could make anybody a singer?

I don't need to analyze the performance. (Hell, what I don't get is how Taylor rearranged her own hit song.) But what I am interested in is the impact. Because now, everybody knows that Taylor Swift can't sing. Is this what they'll remember?

Now unlike Billy Squier's pink video, there won't be endless repetition on MTV. And one can question how much of the target audience saw this performance. But the cognoscenti did, and to what degree do they now want to distance themselves from Ms. Swift?

In other words, did Taylor Swift kill her career overnight?

I'll argue she did. Oh, I'm not fully convinced of that, but let's start from this position.

She'll be even further hated in Nashville (and what kind of fucked up world do we live in where the CMAs are better than the Grammys?) I'd love to say whored out Top Forty radio stations will ignore her, but this is doubtful, still...

In one fell swoop, Taylor Swift consigned herself to the dustbin of teen phenoms. Who we expect to burn brightly and then fade away. From New Kids On The Block to Backstreet Boys to Miley Cyrus. A wall is created, stating you can't come any further. Debbie Gibson can appear in shows on Broadway, but she can't have a hit record, the powers-that-be won't let it happen.

Taylor's too young and dumb to understand the mistake she made. And those surrounding her are addicted to cash and are afraid to tell her no. But last night Taylor Swift SHOULD have auto-tuned. To save her career.

They say it's easy to fake it in the twenty first century.

But one thing we know is the truth will always come out.

It's hard to be a singer if you can't sing.

Ultimately, we want our stars to be genuine. Without this credibility, your time atop the charts is brief.

Taylor Swift shortened her career last night. And since she says she calls all her own shots, she has to shoulder the blame. Yes, her dream came true, she made it, she's a star, but the real test is longevity. Elton John can play with GaGa decades later. Will Taylor Swift be duetting with the stars of the 2030s? Doubtful.



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]