The Press

Image via CrunchBase

Did you read Frank Rich's column in the "New York Times" today?

Entitled "Obama, Lehman and the 'Dragon Tattoo', it's an indictment of the Wall Street robber barons via Stieg Larsson's best-selling book.

http://www.nytimes.com//2010/03/21/opinion/21rich.html

Here's the key passage:

"'A bank director who blows millions on foolhardy speculations should not keep his job,' writes Larsson in one typical passage. 'A managing director who plays shell company games should do time.' Larsson is no less lacerating about influential journalists who treat 'mediocre financial whelps like rock stars' and who docilely 'regurgitate the statements issued by C.E.O.'s and stock-market speculators.' He pleads for some 'tough reporter' to 'identify and expose as traitors' the financial players who have 'systematically and perhaps deliberately' damaged their country's economy 'to satisfy the profit interests of their clients.'"

Where are those tough reporters? Lapping up the spin of Timothy Geithner's public relations team?

"Geithner's major calling lately has been a public-relations tour, with full-dress profiles in The New Yorker, The Atlantic and even Vogue, which filled us in on his humble 'off-the-rack' Brooks Brothers suits. Last week he also contributed a video testimonial to the on-air fifth anniversary celebration of Jim Cramer's 'Mad Money.' Like the heedless casino culture it exemplified, that CNBC program has long been back to speculative business-as-usual, pumping stocks as if the crash were just a small, inconvenient bump on the road to larger profits and bonuses."

Then I turn to the Style section of the "Times" and find Patti Smith on its cover, in a dress.

Who gives a shit about Patti Smith?

The "New York Times", that's who. A bunch of self-congratulatory tastemakers who have paraded the work of this third rate artist ad infinitum for decades, even more so now, even though she hasn't done a worthwhile thing since the seventies.

I bought all the albums, save me the hate mail.

The point is, the papers are skewed.

I know, I know, it's complicated. I'm quoting Frank Rich at the same time I'm decrying the paper's efforts... But my point is, we've been dictated to by the mainstream press for years, have you ever questioned whether their viewpoint is accurate?

Take the Michael Jackson Sony deal...

I received the following e-mail from a powerful music business attorney:

"Have you seen that crap about the Michael Jackson deal? It's everything you talk about in lazy mainstream media reporting.

I've had 2 reporters call me and they seem to have no skepticism at all. I mean, I know it's more than a record deal, but if it's primarily based around records, they'd have to sell more than 50 million to come out of the deal--that will only happen in this market if Michael dies again.

Then in every report, you read about how Sony sold 31 million MJ records last year, 'almost 2/3 of them overseas.' So you check US Soundscan (which a few reporters actually did), and it's 8.3 million units (according to those reports). Multiply that by 3 and you get 31 million? Not in my math class. These guys are so lazy they can't even multiply.

Like I keep telling the reporters, every deal I've ever done that I've read about is wrong, so why should this one be right? Besides, I've inherited deals that Branca did and were reported at about 3 times what they turned out to be when I finally saw the contracts."

Whew!

The Internet is just a constant warning that the old players want to keep their cash cows, want no questions asked, believe they're entitled to their money.

One can argue that Stieg Larsson wasn't first, but a public that rebelled against a major label system that overcharged them for nine tracks they didn't want in order to get the one they did.

People are just as pissed about Wall Street. Unfortunately, it's a bit tough for many to comprehend. But maybe reform isn't as distant as the mainstream believes, as long as bloggers and those in the know online keep hammering away, revealing the truth.

The Grammy's

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.

U2 At The Rose Bowl

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Have you seen "U23D"? You should! Can't think of a better concert film. But the vibe is even better. Shot in South America, in soccer stadiums, you get the feeling of danger, of being outside the law, of being in a nation built by rock and roll.

That's how it felt last night.

If one person had yelled FIRE, many would have been trampled. You not only had to wait in line to get into the gate, you had to wait in line to enter the tunnel to your seat. And when you got there, the sea of humanity was both inspiring and frightening. All colors, not every age. Even though the Black Eyed Peas opened, the younger, bump your hips in the club to get laid and the barely pubescent I want to be like Fergie crowd was not in attendance. This was the last bastion of the population that believed rock and roll could truly save your life. A bunch of baby boomers, but really fortysomethings. They caught on with "Boy", and "Joshua Tree" was the soundtrack to their college years.

So why did U2 begin with the new album?

The Claw is far from impressive in real life. After all the hype, it seemed like something created on a whim as opposed to a military operation conceived and erected by the greatest minds in the business.

Let me be clear. It was the Claw itself that was the problem. What was beneath it, the stage, the ring, the video screen, the rotating ramps, they were MESMERIZING!

But the music was not.

Until "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For".

"I have run
I have crawled
I have scaled these city walls
These city walls
Only to be with you"

Tell someone under twenty one that you sat at home with the TV on all day, waiting to see your favorite video, and they'll look at you dumbfounded. We live in an on demand world. There may be community online, but it's inherently niche. Whereas everyone with ears, everyone who grew up with the Beatles and younger was addicted to MTV.

And sure, there were notable transcendent moments, breakthroughs that changed the business forever.

First came the Duran Duran videos. A fortune spent on them, the band became a household world.

U2 came next. With "Sunday Bloody Sunday" from Red Rocks. If the air had been clear, would the video have been as classic? To see Bono run around with that flag, in the mist, was to believe that rock and roll could triumph.

Michael Jackson danced his way into America's heart.

But there was a parallel story. It was great that MTV became a big tent, but rock and roll did not die. We had U2 marching the streets of Las Vegas, singing "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For". An exquisite concoction of electric and acoustic elements, who can forget Edge walking amongst the neon lights strumming his guitar? This was the joy, the triumph, the power that allows Bono to talk to heads of state. U2 led an army of listeners, all based upon these records, these tracks. They believed that via music we could have a better life, a better world.

Is this still possible?

Music is not leading the way. Steve Jobs and Sergey Brin are bigger rock stars than anybody on the hit parade. Still, U2 soldiers on. And we follow, because we want to believe.

That's what last night was. A celebration of who we used to be. With the hope that we could still be something more.

But the new album has not connected with fans. Most people in attendance seemed to be clueless. Instead of physical writhing, when U2 hit the stage to a slew of new tunes, the audience stood stock still. I was grooving during "Magnificent", I love that track, but with a million copies of "No Line On The Horizon" sold in the U.S., how many of this 100,000 in attendance had bought it?

We live in an attention economy. And U2 screwed up. They didn't get their audience's attention. The album should have come free with the ticket. Doesn't matter if you make new music, you're a has-been in the eye of the public if your new tracks don't catch on.

So, last night the set progressed in fits and starts.

And, picking and choosing from almost every era of the band as opposed to just playing greatest hits, the audience never completely caught fire.

Let's be clear. They were playing to 100,000. Manipulating that many is difficult. Is Bono up to the task? Absolutely! But when Paul McCartney wants to work in new material, he starts off with "Drive My Car", he gets heads exploding first.

Don't get the wrong idea. There were peaks. "Mysterious Ways". And the ultimate crowd triumph was "Where The Streets Have No Name". But the rising hands, the unity of the audience during that number, the feeling that you were part of one large, writhing ocean, was absent for most of the rest of the show.

But you could see just fine. Bono was in fine voice. And when the ramps swung around seemingly with a mind of their own, your jaw dropped. And when the video screen expanded, dropped, you said to yourself I'VE SEEN NOTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE!

But it still comes down to the music.

I LOVED hearing "Until The End Of The World". "Achtung Baby" is my favorite U2 album.

"Get On Your Boots" had a different feel live. Less experimental, more straight ahead rock. But if you didn't love it already, you wouldn't be closed.

And we had the recent hit "Vertigo", but we wanted to hear "Pride (In The Name Of Love)". "New Year's Day". Maybe even "I Will Follow". Last night should not have been an exhibition demonstrating that U2 is still relevant, it should have been a celebration of their career, a restatement of the bond between band and audience, a few more classics and no one would have gone out for a beer, everybody would have sung along, there would have been momentum, the whole Rose Bowl would have levitated.

They've got a chance. They can use innovative new ways to get the new music to the live audience. They can restructure the set so there are fewer dead spots, so the audience is riveted, along for the ride the whole time. Playing a stadium is different from doing your act in an arena. Even with 20,000, you can have everybody in the palm of your hand. But once you start singing to forty or fifty thousand plus, you've got to throw out the old rules, you're working with a different paradigm. In other words, the stage was not enough. It all depended upon the music.

But when the music was right...

"I have spoke with the tongue of angels
I have held the hand of a devil
It was warm in the night
I was cold as a stone"

Live rock and roll, when done right, strips away your regular life, school, work, even relationships. The band is on stage, you're in the audience, and the music hovers between you, an oil, a lubricant, that allows a certain freedom, a movement that you heretofore did not know you possessed. You're standing, moving like Gumby, not caring what others think of your moves, even if you're as bad a dancer as Elaine on "Seinfeld".

"But I still haven't found what I'm looking for But I still haven't found what I'm looking for But I still haven't found what I'm looking for"

I was looking for transcendence.

We can't get it from sold out politicians.

We can't get it from tools of the corporate music trade like the Black Eyed Peas.

We depend on a certain breed of artist, not beholden to anyone but themselves. Either so poor or so rich that they just don't care.

I want Bono to lead us out of the wilderness. I want to tell you that I saw God last night.

I saw God at the Fillmore East, when the Who performed "Tommy" from start to finish.

I saw God at Flipper's roller disco, when Prince performed "Dirty Mind".

I saw God at the Sports Arena in 1992, when U2 toured "Achtung Baby" indoors. The visual assault, with lights in Trabants, with TV screens blasting more information than our brains could process, set the stage for the music. It was a band on stage. They were a cohesive unit. Too many times last night, band members were almost furlongs away from each other. Playing to a last row that they just couldn't seem to reach emotionally.

Good attempt.

Imperfect execution.

I want to believe.

Make me a believer.

What People Value by Pat Melfi

Cover of Feelings (Piccolo Books)

One of the world's largest record company's recently interviewed other firms to handle its payroll. After interviewing the three finalist firms, the three members of the selection committee were stumped. They decided on a perfect solution. They flew to each of the finalist's headquarters, took a short walk around and "got a feeling" for each place. When they walked into the third company's lobby, something immediately somehow "just felt right." They stayed but five minutes, and then headed home. From the airport back home, they called the third company with the multi-million dollar good news.

So often, that is the difference. Not superior competence. Not more years of experience. Just something tiny, like the feeling that you give people. People buy feelings--People value--and pay more for--the way you make them feel.

As promised, we are on a 5 day journey in which we said that at the beginning of each day we will begin with a thought, sort of a theme for the day. We will focus on that theme and throughout the day we will apply the theme in our day and from that day forward apply the principle daily.

Day 2: The Law of Compensation

Your true worth is determined by how much more you give in value than you take in payment...your income is determined by how many people you serve and how well you serve them. Or to put it another way, your compensation is directly proportional to how many lives you touch.

Having been in the entertainment business for over thirty years, I always thought it seemed so unfair how movie stars, musical acts and top athletes pulled down those huge salaries. But people who were doing such great work, such noble work--like school teachers--never got paid what they're worth. It always seemed arbitrary. What I am saying now is, it's not a question of their value. It's a question of their impact. And there two amazing things about this. First, it means that you get to determine your level of compensation--it's under your control. If you want more success, find a way to serve more people. It's that simple. It also means there are no limitations on what you can earn, because you can always find more people to serve. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, "Everybody can be great because anybody can serve." Another way to say that might be, everybody can be successful because anybody can give.

Interestingly enough I have spent countless years in service to others. At the beginning of my career, there came upon me a strong feeling that others might take advantage of me for this. A quick study of The Law of Attraction caused me to adjust my feelings about this. In this law I learned that by feeling that way I could actually attract that kind of outcome. Remember we spoke about this last week when we said that when Mind creates a thought or desire, it will actually manifest it. Since I did not want to attract that kind of outcome, I began to think that all people want by nature to be good and deserve to be served.

Again, as we close we find some very key points that are directly tied to The Law of Compensation that are also tied to yesterday's topic The Law of Value. See if can see the common thread and email me back.

I have become a servant to many of you who email me daily, thanking me for the inspiration I am given through the grace of God to motivate you into a better place, a better spirit, a better life...I am truly grateful for that. Without you, I am nothing. Your emails daily, are a service that I cherish. At the end of the day...people buy feelings!!!