Tune in Saturday January 20th to Faction Talk, channel 103, at 4 PM East, 1 PM West.
Phone #: 844-686-5863
Twitter: @lefsetz
If you miss the episode, you can hear it on demand on the SiriusXM app. Search: Lefsetz
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Friday 19 January 2024
Madonna Lawsuit
"Concertgoers sue Madonna, Live Nation over show starting late": https://rb.gy/w5c108
Even the Stones take the stage on time these days (well close, anyway).
Concerts are a mature business. Dominated by a few companies that have the infrastructure and management down. You can't sneak in backstage, never mind sneak in at all. Act out of line and you'll get tossed. The free-for-all days are gone. It's organized. From buying the tickets online to the security scan to...
The high ticket prices. This is not a cheap night, going out to drink beer and ogle potential suitees, this is a regimented affair, a chance to see your favorite up close and personal. As for the charisma, the distance of yore...
That's history. It used to be exotic. A band from across the land, across the sea, was in your own hometown. And it tended to be your own hometown, you didn't board flights to go to a show, you might drive a few hours, but that was it. So to see David Bowie in person, whew! You pinched yourself that you were in the presence of greatness, of stardom. But today stardom is all over the internet, 24-7. Not only can you see pictures of your heroes, read their words, you can even watch the show you're going to see online beforehand, on YouTube.
So if you're trying to titillate the audience, get them ready, foaming at the mouth, you're out of touch. They're just waiting for you to go on. It's not much different from Vegas. Do your show so they can leave and get back to if not gambling, their regular life.
The Stones were legendary for going on stage late. The anticipation was out of control. When they took the stage heads exploded, metaphorically, at least.
And then there was Guns N' Roses, who couldn't get it together to get on stage on time. I can't say it enhanced the experience. Then again, in the interminable time it took for the band to appear cameras roamed the audience and put images up on the big screen. This was the first time I saw a woman lift her shirt and show her t*ts. Shocked me. This was before you could Google boobs. And it didn't reek of freedom so much as misogyny.
But now Axl Rose is 61. And Madonna is 65. People still want to see them, in droves, but the experience is different. They want to relive their memories. It's no longer cutting edge. Isn't Madonna finally doing her greatest hits, to ensure that she can sell tickets at prodigious prices?
Everybody comes down to earth, it's the songs that remain in heaven.
This was Rock 101. You made the audience wait and you never ever played until the sun went down. It was dark. You know, leather and pool cues. (Well, at least at Altamont.)
Things have changed. Bob Dylan told us that in a song a couple of decades back, and you've got to change with the times or be left behind.
It's one thing to go to a club to see a newbie band. But if the act has traction they're owned by the audience, you have both a bond and an obligation to the audience. You must respect the audience. If for no other reason than it's fickle and it's overwhelmed with choices. They don't need to see you as much as you think. They love going out, and if you make it too hard they stop.
Now in the old, pre-internet days, this lawsuit would have been big news, all over the MTV News, part of public scuttlebutt. And although I caught the news online yesterday, and can see some more news stories when I Google today, not a single person has e-mailed me about this. Because they don't care. There are very few acts that have total penetration of society. And even those don't penetrate as deeply as media purports they do.
You're in bed with your audience. You must respect people, or they move on.
So what is Madonna achieving by going on late? Illustrating how cool she is? Well, the people are in the building, and at this point it's a lot of the same people every tour, they're already in bed with Madonna.
Anticipation? It's not like the old days, where you stand there absolutely bored, waiting for delivery. No, these days you're on your phone, surfing, the same way you do at the doctor's office, waiting for your plane, pissed that no one is on time anymore. Being late doesn't bond people to you, it makes them resent you. In a world where every moment is precious.
And it's one thing in New York, which is a late night town, but on a weekday, and outside the Big Apple?
It's a bad look.
Do I think Live Nation is guilty, should be held liable? No. Everybody in the concert business knows that the act is king, or queen, everything revolves around them, they make all the decisions. Concert promoters are nothing without the acts, and they know it.
This is Madonna's call.
So what does she lose by going on on time? Well, maybe a bit of anticipation, a bit of fervor. But what does she lose by going on late? She's angering the people who support her.
This is not the old days, people have multiple choices for concerts, oftentimes on the very same night. They've come to see you and you're treating them like dirt?
I applaud these guys for suing. And, I hope they don't settle, not for a while anyway, at least not without a public mea culpa from Madonna. Oh, that will never happen, the promoter takes the heat, Live Nation will deliver the mea culpa and Madonna will take the stage closer to on time.
It's not 1984 anymore. As big as you think Taylor Swift is, Madonna was much bigger. Because she was all over MTV and radio when everybody was watching MTV and listening to the radio. Everybody knew "Like a Virgin." "Like a Prayer"'s video debut was an event.
But those days are through, nobody has that kind of mindshare anymore. The cheese has moved and Madonna hasn't moved with it.
The greats adjust to change.
If the public is paying all that money to see you, much more in adjusted dollars than they did in 1984, there's a covenant that they will have a professional experience. Good lights and sound. Respect.
It's not rock and roll anymore, it's show business.
It could be rock and roll once again, but then someone would have to break all the rules and they don't want to, because they can't turn down all that money, they want the corporate cash, they want the media love, they don't want to risk marginality. But everything new and different worth paying attention to is outside and pooh-poohed, it challenges our beliefs, our societal mores. And that's what Madonna did. But that was forty years ago. Today if you kill somebody you're only in the news for a day. Shoot up a school and it might be a bit longer, a week. Some "artist" taking a stand? Most people are not going to know about it. And then there are others who are going to say grow up, to stop being an adolescent.
You can be old and push boundaries, test limits. But our classic rockers have blinked. They get plastic surgery, they wear wigs, to try and remind us of what once was. But that was not the deal in rock and roll. If anything, you were supposed to live fast and die hard, soon. But if you lived, you've got to evolve.
So most people don't know Madonna is taking the stage so late, most people don't care what she's doing whatsoever, it's a small subset of the public.
And most people are not paying attention to new music, it's too overwhelming, incomprehensible, and the industry does nothing to combat this.
So some old woman (and she is a woman, this is not sexist, it can be a man too) goes out and performs ancient hits to those running on fumes, i.e. memories. Kudos that anybody wants to go. But don't tell me it's a cultural event. Don't ask me to care. And when I find out you're going on so late... I might still go, but most people will not.
Hell, Jamie Lee Curtis got more ink asking old rockers to do matinees!
So much has changed. When was the last time you had car trouble? Even back in '84 people wouldn't show up because their car wouldn't start.
Remember when you couldn't get ahold of people? Remember when answering machines were a breakthrough?
Remember when the food at the arena was awful?
You can't get away with that anymore, and you can't get away with going on hours late either. It's a losing proposition. You're angering your fans, and they're the ones supporting you.
Time to wake up.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Even the Stones take the stage on time these days (well close, anyway).
Concerts are a mature business. Dominated by a few companies that have the infrastructure and management down. You can't sneak in backstage, never mind sneak in at all. Act out of line and you'll get tossed. The free-for-all days are gone. It's organized. From buying the tickets online to the security scan to...
The high ticket prices. This is not a cheap night, going out to drink beer and ogle potential suitees, this is a regimented affair, a chance to see your favorite up close and personal. As for the charisma, the distance of yore...
That's history. It used to be exotic. A band from across the land, across the sea, was in your own hometown. And it tended to be your own hometown, you didn't board flights to go to a show, you might drive a few hours, but that was it. So to see David Bowie in person, whew! You pinched yourself that you were in the presence of greatness, of stardom. But today stardom is all over the internet, 24-7. Not only can you see pictures of your heroes, read their words, you can even watch the show you're going to see online beforehand, on YouTube.
So if you're trying to titillate the audience, get them ready, foaming at the mouth, you're out of touch. They're just waiting for you to go on. It's not much different from Vegas. Do your show so they can leave and get back to if not gambling, their regular life.
The Stones were legendary for going on stage late. The anticipation was out of control. When they took the stage heads exploded, metaphorically, at least.
And then there was Guns N' Roses, who couldn't get it together to get on stage on time. I can't say it enhanced the experience. Then again, in the interminable time it took for the band to appear cameras roamed the audience and put images up on the big screen. This was the first time I saw a woman lift her shirt and show her t*ts. Shocked me. This was before you could Google boobs. And it didn't reek of freedom so much as misogyny.
But now Axl Rose is 61. And Madonna is 65. People still want to see them, in droves, but the experience is different. They want to relive their memories. It's no longer cutting edge. Isn't Madonna finally doing her greatest hits, to ensure that she can sell tickets at prodigious prices?
Everybody comes down to earth, it's the songs that remain in heaven.
This was Rock 101. You made the audience wait and you never ever played until the sun went down. It was dark. You know, leather and pool cues. (Well, at least at Altamont.)
Things have changed. Bob Dylan told us that in a song a couple of decades back, and you've got to change with the times or be left behind.
It's one thing to go to a club to see a newbie band. But if the act has traction they're owned by the audience, you have both a bond and an obligation to the audience. You must respect the audience. If for no other reason than it's fickle and it's overwhelmed with choices. They don't need to see you as much as you think. They love going out, and if you make it too hard they stop.
Now in the old, pre-internet days, this lawsuit would have been big news, all over the MTV News, part of public scuttlebutt. And although I caught the news online yesterday, and can see some more news stories when I Google today, not a single person has e-mailed me about this. Because they don't care. There are very few acts that have total penetration of society. And even those don't penetrate as deeply as media purports they do.
You're in bed with your audience. You must respect people, or they move on.
So what is Madonna achieving by going on late? Illustrating how cool she is? Well, the people are in the building, and at this point it's a lot of the same people every tour, they're already in bed with Madonna.
Anticipation? It's not like the old days, where you stand there absolutely bored, waiting for delivery. No, these days you're on your phone, surfing, the same way you do at the doctor's office, waiting for your plane, pissed that no one is on time anymore. Being late doesn't bond people to you, it makes them resent you. In a world where every moment is precious.
And it's one thing in New York, which is a late night town, but on a weekday, and outside the Big Apple?
It's a bad look.
Do I think Live Nation is guilty, should be held liable? No. Everybody in the concert business knows that the act is king, or queen, everything revolves around them, they make all the decisions. Concert promoters are nothing without the acts, and they know it.
This is Madonna's call.
So what does she lose by going on on time? Well, maybe a bit of anticipation, a bit of fervor. But what does she lose by going on late? She's angering the people who support her.
This is not the old days, people have multiple choices for concerts, oftentimes on the very same night. They've come to see you and you're treating them like dirt?
I applaud these guys for suing. And, I hope they don't settle, not for a while anyway, at least not without a public mea culpa from Madonna. Oh, that will never happen, the promoter takes the heat, Live Nation will deliver the mea culpa and Madonna will take the stage closer to on time.
It's not 1984 anymore. As big as you think Taylor Swift is, Madonna was much bigger. Because she was all over MTV and radio when everybody was watching MTV and listening to the radio. Everybody knew "Like a Virgin." "Like a Prayer"'s video debut was an event.
But those days are through, nobody has that kind of mindshare anymore. The cheese has moved and Madonna hasn't moved with it.
The greats adjust to change.
If the public is paying all that money to see you, much more in adjusted dollars than they did in 1984, there's a covenant that they will have a professional experience. Good lights and sound. Respect.
It's not rock and roll anymore, it's show business.
It could be rock and roll once again, but then someone would have to break all the rules and they don't want to, because they can't turn down all that money, they want the corporate cash, they want the media love, they don't want to risk marginality. But everything new and different worth paying attention to is outside and pooh-poohed, it challenges our beliefs, our societal mores. And that's what Madonna did. But that was forty years ago. Today if you kill somebody you're only in the news for a day. Shoot up a school and it might be a bit longer, a week. Some "artist" taking a stand? Most people are not going to know about it. And then there are others who are going to say grow up, to stop being an adolescent.
You can be old and push boundaries, test limits. But our classic rockers have blinked. They get plastic surgery, they wear wigs, to try and remind us of what once was. But that was not the deal in rock and roll. If anything, you were supposed to live fast and die hard, soon. But if you lived, you've got to evolve.
So most people don't know Madonna is taking the stage so late, most people don't care what she's doing whatsoever, it's a small subset of the public.
And most people are not paying attention to new music, it's too overwhelming, incomprehensible, and the industry does nothing to combat this.
So some old woman (and she is a woman, this is not sexist, it can be a man too) goes out and performs ancient hits to those running on fumes, i.e. memories. Kudos that anybody wants to go. But don't tell me it's a cultural event. Don't ask me to care. And when I find out you're going on so late... I might still go, but most people will not.
Hell, Jamie Lee Curtis got more ink asking old rockers to do matinees!
So much has changed. When was the last time you had car trouble? Even back in '84 people wouldn't show up because their car wouldn't start.
Remember when you couldn't get ahold of people? Remember when answering machines were a breakthrough?
Remember when the food at the arena was awful?
You can't get away with that anymore, and you can't get away with going on hours late either. It's a losing proposition. You're angering your fans, and they're the ones supporting you.
Time to wake up.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Thursday 18 January 2024
Narada Michael Walden-This Week's Podcast
He played with the Mahavishnu Orchestra. He co-wrote and produced "Freeway of Love" for Aretha Franklin and "How Will I Know" for Whitney Houston. And he tells a great story. Even if you're unfamiliar with Narada, you know his work, and you'll love listening to him.
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-the-bob-lefsetz-podcast-30806836/episode/narada-michael-walden-143827166/
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/narada-michael-walden/id1316200737?i=1000642081705
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3bup5sC1zEb41ekghokLq7?si=rtnutYZXS0Cg1qQG1WPYZw
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ff4fb19-54d4-41ae-ae7a-8a6f8d3dafa8/episodes/1e821cd4-9154-4328-b36d-5724cd40a31d/the-bob-lefsetz-podcast-narada-michael-walden
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-the-bob-lefsetz-podcast-30806836/episode/narada-michael-walden-143827166/
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/narada-michael-walden/id1316200737?i=1000642081705
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3bup5sC1zEb41ekghokLq7?si=rtnutYZXS0Cg1qQG1WPYZw
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ff4fb19-54d4-41ae-ae7a-8a6f8d3dafa8/episodes/1e821cd4-9154-4328-b36d-5724cd40a31d/the-bob-lefsetz-podcast-narada-michael-walden
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Wednesday 17 January 2024
Computer Lesson
I'm writing the below because I constantly interact with boomers online, especially doing podcasts, who are technologically impaired, even though they're musicians and use Pro Tools. Boomers are all about the external, they've got an iPhone 15 and the latest MacBook Air, they tell you how much they know, but oftentimes they are clueless. If this is not you, ignore all of the below, you already know it. Kudos. You don't have to e-mail me telling you're up to speed. You help make the world go 'round, thanks for being on the team. And everybody under thirty seems to know much of the below. But the people who are anti-tech, who lament the changes, who tell you to get off your smartphone...too many of these people have no idea how powerful these devices are, and they don't know how to eke out any of this power, they've got the device but they're constantly flummoxed. Ergo, the below.
INTERNET PROVIDER
Go with cable, it's the fastest and most reliable. Forget how much you hate the cable company, deservedly so, but cable is better than all other options other than Fios.
Fios... The build-out has stopped. So you probably can't get it anyway. It can be as good as cable, but the support is usually not as good.
Other providers/resellers, like Frontier... Service is so terrible don't even start.
DSL. Antiquated and slow. Forget about it.
T-Mobile and other 5G home providers. DO NOT BUY! They're inherently unreliable. The ads will tell you otherwise, but I know a tech writer who has this in their house and it's a joke. Not ready for prime time. Good in theory, bad in practice.
INTERNET SPEED
Forget all those articles in media telling you you don't need much bandwidth. You need a ton of bandwidth. Call it headroom, just like you used to think of watts when you were buying a stereo amplifier/receiver. Yes, the more devices you use the more bandwidth you need. But, once again, these providers rarely deliver what they say they do. Internet is now a requirement, a necessity of life. The internet must work smoothly, like a utility, you never want to have to think about it. Which is why you need at least triple digit speed down. Most cable providers now deliver this in their base package. I'd advise at least 200 Mbps down. And if you're having trouble with your internet, especially TV, you'll be stunned how much additional bandwidth will help.
As for the fact that the more households that use cable simultaneously the less the speed for individual users...we're living in 2023. The cable providers have beefed up infrastructure and your speed might slow, but it's negligible. And if you've got a high speed it's essentially irrelevant.
As for up... You want 20 Mbps. You need more than 10.
WI-FI CALLING
It doesn't matter if your cell phone doesn't work at home, because your internet/Wi-Fi will do the trick. This is a built-in feature from Verizon, et al. All you need to do is click a setting within your iPhone. I could tell you how to do it, but a quick Google will explain it. Or you can call. Now anywhere you have internet, you have cellphone reception. In your basement and places where there is no cell service.
COMPUTER
Buy a Mac. Unless you're so computer savvy everything in this screed is known by you. Why do you buy a Mac? Because it's easier to use. Which is why super-PC users decry it. It's nearly bulletproof.
Don't buy the base model. Today the key is chip speed and RAM. Storage is no longer an issue because so much is stored in the cloud. But still, don't buy the base amount, you may not even have enough storage to upgrade the operating system.
The base price is a come-on. Don't fall for it.
And don't buy antiquated equipment, you think you're saving money, but you're not, this just means the computer will work for less time in the future. It's all about software, you need the security updates, and at a certain point the manufacturer stops providing them, and you're SOL. This is another reason to buy a Mac, there is an occasional security breach, but I haven't had one in nearly forty years of Mac usage. As for PC owners, the less knowledgeable get viruses and lack of usability constantly.
MAIL APP
Use it. It works with all providers. Don't go to the web to check your mail. Also, set the default to check as quickly as possible, like a minute.
BROWSER
If it doesn't work in Safari, try Firefox, and then Chrome. Chrome is the standard but it's the least safe.
SETTINGS
It's the gray box in the Dock with the gears inside. Click on it and you can change... Almost anything.
OPEN APP
If it's got a black dot at the bottom of the icon in the Dock, it's open. Just click on it and it will come to the foreground.
PC
I've got one, I've had some. They work, but they're a lot less intuitive.
SAVE
You can change the default. Usually an app saves to the Documents folder. But you can have it save to the Desktop, to anywhere.
KEYCHAIN
The little magnifying glass in the upper righthand corner... Click on it and you can search and find anything instantly. Keychain will do math and other tasks, but let's not get carried away and overwhelm you.
REBOOT
When something doesn't work.
FORCE QUIT
When an app doesn't work. Go to the Apple in the upper lefthand corner. It's the fifth choice down.
MICROSOFT OFFICE
The standard, but don't use Outlook unless you have to for work. Use the Mail, Contacts and Calendar apps. Trust me. As for Word and Excel, the former is much more powerful than you need and the latter is the standard, but unless you're working in it regularly, Apple's Numbers is sufficient.
SAVE BEFORE QUITTING
Once you quit the app, it's gone forever, FOREVER!
SAVE
If you're writing, hit save regularly, it should be a reflex.
DISAPPEARANCE
Happens all the time, what you typed is gone. Go up to the Edit menu and hit Undo, it almost always replaces what has disappeared. You hit something by accident to make it go, but the computer remembers what was there. Unless you start typing again or take other action. When in a crisis, stop and think before you touch anything.
PASSWORD MANAGER
Ignore all the hype. A Mac suggests a password and then stores it and the user name in the Keychain. And when a site requires it, will provide it.
iCLOUD
Turn it on on all your devices. So that your addresses will be available elsewhere, as well as your passwords. Do not be afraid of hacks/security. If you use a strong password it's essentially totally safe. But if you use a guessable password, you're vulnerable. Also, you can store all those photos in the Cloud, decluttering your phone... And they are still there, available to download instantly when you want them.
PASSWORDS
Are stored in your iPhone's settings. Just look for them.
iPHONE
Buy one. Android is cheaper, but every one is a bit different, they're loaded with crapware, but the bottom line is most people have an iPhone, so if you have a problem they'll be able to help you with it.
FACIAL RECOGNITION
Turn it on, it's not perfect but it's very good, and saves you a lot of time entering passwords in apps, turn it on for that.
BANKING
Do not ever write a check, never ever. If you are writing a check you are opening yourself up to fraud, even if it's just for one dollar. I could point you to the exhaustive stories about this, but just take my word for it. They get your check, they wash it and then reuse it, or create new checks with your account. Pay every bill online, every single one, from your credit card to your utilities to your tax bill... It's much safer than checks, don't get caught up in old school thinking.
UPGRADE YOUR SOFTWARE
A lot of this is now automatic, but if you don't upgrade the software you're opening yourself up to security breaches. Most upgrades are security patches. The days of upgrades screwing up your machine are gone. Of course there are lapses, but ignore the haters.
SEARCH
Now it's built in to the home screen of the iPhone. Or you can pull down from the top of the screen and you get a box, as well as icons of the apps the iPhone thinks you're going to use. That's what AI does for you.
SMARTPHONE
Is the most important device you own. More important than your car. Do not cheap out, buy a new one and keep it updated. It might literally save you. The latest iPhones will speak to the satellite in an emergency. Therefore you won't have to cut off your arm to free yourself from a boulder in order to walk to safety.
FOR OLDSTERS
Do this, right away. Go to the Settings in your iPhone, click on Accessibility, then click on Display and Text and the top choice will be Bold Text. Turn it on. Your keyboard letters will now be thicker and easier to see.
TYPING SOUND
You want to turn this off immediately. If people can hear clicks when you type you'll be seen as an ignorant newbie. Who wants to hear you type? Especially in a quiet environment. Go to Sounds & Haptics in the Settings of your iPhone. Click and on the next screen scroll down to System Sounds & Haptics. Underneath that you'll see Keyboard Feedback. Click it to say None.
GOOGLE
It is your friend. It will answer almost all questions. Go to Google first.
SHARING
Have your own e-mail address and your own iCloud account. Period. I could explain why, but let's just say that if you lose your phone it can be replicated perfectly from the cloud, very quickly. But if you're sharing someone's account...it's complicated.
KNOW HOW YOUR MACHINE WORKS
It's not like the eighties, even the nineties, these machines work so well, especially the iPad, its software almost never fails. But you're going to hit walls, all of us do. Sure, you can call someone, but usually with a little Googling you can figure it out, and you'll feel so good and become empowered for when the next thing goes wrong.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
INTERNET PROVIDER
Go with cable, it's the fastest and most reliable. Forget how much you hate the cable company, deservedly so, but cable is better than all other options other than Fios.
Fios... The build-out has stopped. So you probably can't get it anyway. It can be as good as cable, but the support is usually not as good.
Other providers/resellers, like Frontier... Service is so terrible don't even start.
DSL. Antiquated and slow. Forget about it.
T-Mobile and other 5G home providers. DO NOT BUY! They're inherently unreliable. The ads will tell you otherwise, but I know a tech writer who has this in their house and it's a joke. Not ready for prime time. Good in theory, bad in practice.
INTERNET SPEED
Forget all those articles in media telling you you don't need much bandwidth. You need a ton of bandwidth. Call it headroom, just like you used to think of watts when you were buying a stereo amplifier/receiver. Yes, the more devices you use the more bandwidth you need. But, once again, these providers rarely deliver what they say they do. Internet is now a requirement, a necessity of life. The internet must work smoothly, like a utility, you never want to have to think about it. Which is why you need at least triple digit speed down. Most cable providers now deliver this in their base package. I'd advise at least 200 Mbps down. And if you're having trouble with your internet, especially TV, you'll be stunned how much additional bandwidth will help.
As for the fact that the more households that use cable simultaneously the less the speed for individual users...we're living in 2023. The cable providers have beefed up infrastructure and your speed might slow, but it's negligible. And if you've got a high speed it's essentially irrelevant.
As for up... You want 20 Mbps. You need more than 10.
WI-FI CALLING
It doesn't matter if your cell phone doesn't work at home, because your internet/Wi-Fi will do the trick. This is a built-in feature from Verizon, et al. All you need to do is click a setting within your iPhone. I could tell you how to do it, but a quick Google will explain it. Or you can call. Now anywhere you have internet, you have cellphone reception. In your basement and places where there is no cell service.
COMPUTER
Buy a Mac. Unless you're so computer savvy everything in this screed is known by you. Why do you buy a Mac? Because it's easier to use. Which is why super-PC users decry it. It's nearly bulletproof.
Don't buy the base model. Today the key is chip speed and RAM. Storage is no longer an issue because so much is stored in the cloud. But still, don't buy the base amount, you may not even have enough storage to upgrade the operating system.
The base price is a come-on. Don't fall for it.
And don't buy antiquated equipment, you think you're saving money, but you're not, this just means the computer will work for less time in the future. It's all about software, you need the security updates, and at a certain point the manufacturer stops providing them, and you're SOL. This is another reason to buy a Mac, there is an occasional security breach, but I haven't had one in nearly forty years of Mac usage. As for PC owners, the less knowledgeable get viruses and lack of usability constantly.
MAIL APP
Use it. It works with all providers. Don't go to the web to check your mail. Also, set the default to check as quickly as possible, like a minute.
BROWSER
If it doesn't work in Safari, try Firefox, and then Chrome. Chrome is the standard but it's the least safe.
SETTINGS
It's the gray box in the Dock with the gears inside. Click on it and you can change... Almost anything.
OPEN APP
If it's got a black dot at the bottom of the icon in the Dock, it's open. Just click on it and it will come to the foreground.
PC
I've got one, I've had some. They work, but they're a lot less intuitive.
SAVE
You can change the default. Usually an app saves to the Documents folder. But you can have it save to the Desktop, to anywhere.
KEYCHAIN
The little magnifying glass in the upper righthand corner... Click on it and you can search and find anything instantly. Keychain will do math and other tasks, but let's not get carried away and overwhelm you.
REBOOT
When something doesn't work.
FORCE QUIT
When an app doesn't work. Go to the Apple in the upper lefthand corner. It's the fifth choice down.
MICROSOFT OFFICE
The standard, but don't use Outlook unless you have to for work. Use the Mail, Contacts and Calendar apps. Trust me. As for Word and Excel, the former is much more powerful than you need and the latter is the standard, but unless you're working in it regularly, Apple's Numbers is sufficient.
SAVE BEFORE QUITTING
Once you quit the app, it's gone forever, FOREVER!
SAVE
If you're writing, hit save regularly, it should be a reflex.
DISAPPEARANCE
Happens all the time, what you typed is gone. Go up to the Edit menu and hit Undo, it almost always replaces what has disappeared. You hit something by accident to make it go, but the computer remembers what was there. Unless you start typing again or take other action. When in a crisis, stop and think before you touch anything.
PASSWORD MANAGER
Ignore all the hype. A Mac suggests a password and then stores it and the user name in the Keychain. And when a site requires it, will provide it.
iCLOUD
Turn it on on all your devices. So that your addresses will be available elsewhere, as well as your passwords. Do not be afraid of hacks/security. If you use a strong password it's essentially totally safe. But if you use a guessable password, you're vulnerable. Also, you can store all those photos in the Cloud, decluttering your phone... And they are still there, available to download instantly when you want them.
PASSWORDS
Are stored in your iPhone's settings. Just look for them.
iPHONE
Buy one. Android is cheaper, but every one is a bit different, they're loaded with crapware, but the bottom line is most people have an iPhone, so if you have a problem they'll be able to help you with it.
FACIAL RECOGNITION
Turn it on, it's not perfect but it's very good, and saves you a lot of time entering passwords in apps, turn it on for that.
BANKING
Do not ever write a check, never ever. If you are writing a check you are opening yourself up to fraud, even if it's just for one dollar. I could point you to the exhaustive stories about this, but just take my word for it. They get your check, they wash it and then reuse it, or create new checks with your account. Pay every bill online, every single one, from your credit card to your utilities to your tax bill... It's much safer than checks, don't get caught up in old school thinking.
UPGRADE YOUR SOFTWARE
A lot of this is now automatic, but if you don't upgrade the software you're opening yourself up to security breaches. Most upgrades are security patches. The days of upgrades screwing up your machine are gone. Of course there are lapses, but ignore the haters.
SEARCH
Now it's built in to the home screen of the iPhone. Or you can pull down from the top of the screen and you get a box, as well as icons of the apps the iPhone thinks you're going to use. That's what AI does for you.
SMARTPHONE
Is the most important device you own. More important than your car. Do not cheap out, buy a new one and keep it updated. It might literally save you. The latest iPhones will speak to the satellite in an emergency. Therefore you won't have to cut off your arm to free yourself from a boulder in order to walk to safety.
FOR OLDSTERS
Do this, right away. Go to the Settings in your iPhone, click on Accessibility, then click on Display and Text and the top choice will be Bold Text. Turn it on. Your keyboard letters will now be thicker and easier to see.
TYPING SOUND
You want to turn this off immediately. If people can hear clicks when you type you'll be seen as an ignorant newbie. Who wants to hear you type? Especially in a quiet environment. Go to Sounds & Haptics in the Settings of your iPhone. Click and on the next screen scroll down to System Sounds & Haptics. Underneath that you'll see Keyboard Feedback. Click it to say None.
It is your friend. It will answer almost all questions. Go to Google first.
SHARING
Have your own e-mail address and your own iCloud account. Period. I could explain why, but let's just say that if you lose your phone it can be replicated perfectly from the cloud, very quickly. But if you're sharing someone's account...it's complicated.
KNOW HOW YOUR MACHINE WORKS
It's not like the eighties, even the nineties, these machines work so well, especially the iPad, its software almost never fails. But you're going to hit walls, all of us do. Sure, you can call someone, but usually with a little Googling you can figure it out, and you'll feel so good and become empowered for when the next thing goes wrong.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Tuesday 16 January 2024
Everything's Inviolate
If I mention anything about Trump, I'm accused of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" from his acolytes. If I write anything about Taylor Swift, absolutely anything, I hear from her fans that I'm a hater.
This is the America we now live in. Black and white. Or should I say red and blue.
Everybody's got a tribe, everybody's got their beliefs, and you can't say anything negative about them or the pushback becomes unreal. And the problem with this is the chilling effect, the people shutting up because they're fearful of the blowback, and I understand this, completely.
I'm not talking about the trolls. Participate at all and your inbox or message thread will be inundated with comments from people who hate you in principle, who are mad that you have an audience and they don't. Their goal is to make you shut up. And if you do, they win.
Never engage, this is what these people want, attention, in a world where it's nearly impossible to get any.
But this means we live in a world where nothing can be gray, nothing can be analyzed, nothing can be poked over and evaluated.
Joe Biden? He's old. And he presents that way. My inbox is going to go berserk right now, from boomers, telling me I need to shut up and get behind the man. They tell me all the great things Joe has done. And the funny thing is I know, I voted for him before and I'll vote for him again. But he's far from perfect, even his administration is far from perfect. And I don't think he should be the candidate. If he is, will I vote for him? Yes. But in the eyes of the Biden tribe I must be quiet and get in line. And these are Democrats, the supposed Big Tent party.
As for getting in line... Look what that has done for the Republicans in Congress. Now nothing can get done. Do you call that governing? I certainly don't.
If Taylor Swift were a local without a deal who never got any press would I be writing about her? No. But Taylor Swift is the most famous woman in America today, and she operates in the music world, and therefore she and her career are worthy of analysis.
But not to the Swifties. Get in line, she's the greatest, the best there ever was, and if you say otherwise you're a pariah.
And the press has fallen in line with this, because it's a perfect old media story. Big star dominates. But that paradigm has evaporated. Where is the movie star who can open a movie? But we keep on reading the endless interviews, the endless hype about these stars and their flicks, which are oftentimes dead on arrival.
So how big is Taylor Swift? Isn't that a question for analysis?
My point is no one is as big as those of the past, because there are so many options, opportunities.
In the sixties we lived in a monoculture. AM radio was pushed to you and everybody knew the same songs. At the end of the decade and into the seventies there was an alternative, FM. And then in the eighties the monoculture reappeared, with MTV. So everybody knew Culture Club. Genesis became a mainstream act.
But those are not the days we live in now.
So what days do we live in?
Oh, you'd better not mention Taylor Swift, because you're a misogynist with an agenda.
Well, what about Morgan Wallen? He's a racist. Appealing to nitwits. Next!
Well, can Morgan Wallen ever be forgiven? Not according to my inbox. Even though these same people have never heard a note. He said the n-word and we live in a zero tolerance society. Well, he was drunk and he was using it as a term of affection. Does that make a difference? No, it's the third rail.
That's the world we live in. Either you stand on the platform and stay quiet or you risk touching the third rail and being electrocuted.
And beware of saying something about Teslas. Their owners and the right wing fans of Elon Musk will excoriate you. Yes, their software is the best, but their build quality is not. And Elon made some poor choices with self-driving. But we cannot say anything negative about heroes otherwise we're seen as having an agenda, trying to bring people down.
I subscribe to the Amplifier newsletter from the "New York Times." Today the author wrote about "8 upcoming albums to get excited about."
Here are the eight acts, do you know more than one? Have you even heard of one?
1. Waxahatchee
She's got two songs with double digit million streams on Spotify, one twenty and another fifteen. If you think that's a major star, you don't know numbers.
2. Sheer Mag
Well, there is one track with three million streams and two tracks with two million streams and one track with one million streams.
3. Brittany Howard
Well, we all know her. Right?
4. The Smile
One cut with sixteen million. Another with ten. A bunch more in single digit millions.
5. Mary Timony
One track has over fifty thousand streams, none other comes close.
6. Julia Holter
A handful of cuts with single digit million streams.
7. Helado Negro
One cut with ten million streams, a few with single digit millions.
8. Faye Webster
She actually has triple digit millions of two tracks, but I doubt you know her anyway.
Number 50 on Spotify's Global chart, "Rompe La Dompe," had thirteen million streams LAST WEEK! Number one, "La Diabla," had thirty four million.
Okay smartypants. Ask your kids if they've heard of these acts.
These are all cult items. Very small cults. And there are more cults than ever before. But we don't see an article about this in the "New York Times," just endless listing of acts that no one has heard of with no context. And sans context, we don't pay attention, we move on. To the detriment of music in general.
But it's not only the "Times," many publications do this. Hype acts with tiny audiences. And, unfortunately, when you listen to these records you don't find the new Joni Mitchell, at best you hear professional productions. Better to listen to the oldies.
And Taylor Swift is an oldie. She has an established name. Which is why she gets so much ink. Which is self-reinforcing.
So what is going on?
You'd better not ask any questions. Nobody asks any questions in the music business. There are endless awards shows, as if the public cares a whit. The majors promote their acts. There's a whole industry of hype but does it reach the public? Most of it does not.
And the public is not getting turned on by music on terrestrial radio, kids are not listening. Hell, if people were listening Audacy wouldn't have declared bankruptcy.
But let's keep shoveling the sh*t and never ask any questions.
Are Taylor Swift's songs in the ballpark of the Beatles? Of New Kids on the Block? Will they be remembered, will they have staying power?
For years we had to hear about all the chart records Mariah Carey broke. Other than her Xmas song, none of them are standards today.
Want a standard? Sublime's "What I Got."
So music today is heard by fewer people and it has less overall cultural impact. But you can't say that in the music industry, then you're seen as pissing on it. It's all up all the time, as the labels skim TikTok artists that are here today and gone tomorrow.
Can we ask any questions?
Like climate change. Half the country won't hear it, no way. And they always come up with some expert to the contrary. But the younger generation, which will inherit the planet, they're very concerned. But they've got very little power. So let's ignore them.
There are so many issues that can't be debated. That if you have an opinion on you must not verbalize it. You don't want to be ostracized, do you?
And this permeates all walks of life, every sector. There is an orthodoxy and it better not be questioned.
Then again, I went to a college with no objective tests, where we didn't discuss the reading in class. Analysis was everything. And that makes me part of a minority. Especially in today's world where college is seen as a glorified trade school. College is about getting a job, right? No one said that when I went to college.
And there's teaching to the test in elementary and secondary school.
And the average citizen can't discern a lie from the truth, never mind ask the questions that will tease out veracity.
I'm not telling you you can't listen to Taylor Swift, or go to her show. She's had more success on the road this year than any other act. Morgan Wallen had a bigger year with new music, but, once again, he's a pariah.
Therefore I start my analysis with acts you've heard of. So there's context. But you dismiss what I say out of hand. I'm not saying you must agree with me, but one thing is for sure, no act today, NO ACT, is as big as one from yesterday, in the pre-internet era. There are too many choices, too many niches, you pull your music, it is not thrust upon you, you don't have to listen to anything you don't want to.
And this is worth looking at. What is going on. Is this the way it's always going to be, or could a single act change the paradigm? And can't we at least accept the truth? That the acts you love might not be loved or even known by the vast majority of people, who don't give a sh*t.
This is the world we live in.
But all we're told is to get off our smartphones, that they're the devil.
Well, good luck getting an Uber, looking up facts, connecting with friends.
We need to accept the present. But that does not mean we can't question it, investigate it.
With knowledge comes power. Gain it. And you do this by looking beneath the surface, doing your best to find out what is really going on.
But today that's a lonely pursuit.
Now I'm going to STFU!
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
This is the America we now live in. Black and white. Or should I say red and blue.
Everybody's got a tribe, everybody's got their beliefs, and you can't say anything negative about them or the pushback becomes unreal. And the problem with this is the chilling effect, the people shutting up because they're fearful of the blowback, and I understand this, completely.
I'm not talking about the trolls. Participate at all and your inbox or message thread will be inundated with comments from people who hate you in principle, who are mad that you have an audience and they don't. Their goal is to make you shut up. And if you do, they win.
Never engage, this is what these people want, attention, in a world where it's nearly impossible to get any.
But this means we live in a world where nothing can be gray, nothing can be analyzed, nothing can be poked over and evaluated.
Joe Biden? He's old. And he presents that way. My inbox is going to go berserk right now, from boomers, telling me I need to shut up and get behind the man. They tell me all the great things Joe has done. And the funny thing is I know, I voted for him before and I'll vote for him again. But he's far from perfect, even his administration is far from perfect. And I don't think he should be the candidate. If he is, will I vote for him? Yes. But in the eyes of the Biden tribe I must be quiet and get in line. And these are Democrats, the supposed Big Tent party.
As for getting in line... Look what that has done for the Republicans in Congress. Now nothing can get done. Do you call that governing? I certainly don't.
If Taylor Swift were a local without a deal who never got any press would I be writing about her? No. But Taylor Swift is the most famous woman in America today, and she operates in the music world, and therefore she and her career are worthy of analysis.
But not to the Swifties. Get in line, she's the greatest, the best there ever was, and if you say otherwise you're a pariah.
And the press has fallen in line with this, because it's a perfect old media story. Big star dominates. But that paradigm has evaporated. Where is the movie star who can open a movie? But we keep on reading the endless interviews, the endless hype about these stars and their flicks, which are oftentimes dead on arrival.
So how big is Taylor Swift? Isn't that a question for analysis?
My point is no one is as big as those of the past, because there are so many options, opportunities.
In the sixties we lived in a monoculture. AM radio was pushed to you and everybody knew the same songs. At the end of the decade and into the seventies there was an alternative, FM. And then in the eighties the monoculture reappeared, with MTV. So everybody knew Culture Club. Genesis became a mainstream act.
But those are not the days we live in now.
So what days do we live in?
Oh, you'd better not mention Taylor Swift, because you're a misogynist with an agenda.
Well, what about Morgan Wallen? He's a racist. Appealing to nitwits. Next!
Well, can Morgan Wallen ever be forgiven? Not according to my inbox. Even though these same people have never heard a note. He said the n-word and we live in a zero tolerance society. Well, he was drunk and he was using it as a term of affection. Does that make a difference? No, it's the third rail.
That's the world we live in. Either you stand on the platform and stay quiet or you risk touching the third rail and being electrocuted.
And beware of saying something about Teslas. Their owners and the right wing fans of Elon Musk will excoriate you. Yes, their software is the best, but their build quality is not. And Elon made some poor choices with self-driving. But we cannot say anything negative about heroes otherwise we're seen as having an agenda, trying to bring people down.
I subscribe to the Amplifier newsletter from the "New York Times." Today the author wrote about "8 upcoming albums to get excited about."
Here are the eight acts, do you know more than one? Have you even heard of one?
1. Waxahatchee
She's got two songs with double digit million streams on Spotify, one twenty and another fifteen. If you think that's a major star, you don't know numbers.
2. Sheer Mag
Well, there is one track with three million streams and two tracks with two million streams and one track with one million streams.
3. Brittany Howard
Well, we all know her. Right?
4. The Smile
One cut with sixteen million. Another with ten. A bunch more in single digit millions.
5. Mary Timony
One track has over fifty thousand streams, none other comes close.
6. Julia Holter
A handful of cuts with single digit million streams.
7. Helado Negro
One cut with ten million streams, a few with single digit millions.
8. Faye Webster
She actually has triple digit millions of two tracks, but I doubt you know her anyway.
Number 50 on Spotify's Global chart, "Rompe La Dompe," had thirteen million streams LAST WEEK! Number one, "La Diabla," had thirty four million.
Okay smartypants. Ask your kids if they've heard of these acts.
These are all cult items. Very small cults. And there are more cults than ever before. But we don't see an article about this in the "New York Times," just endless listing of acts that no one has heard of with no context. And sans context, we don't pay attention, we move on. To the detriment of music in general.
But it's not only the "Times," many publications do this. Hype acts with tiny audiences. And, unfortunately, when you listen to these records you don't find the new Joni Mitchell, at best you hear professional productions. Better to listen to the oldies.
And Taylor Swift is an oldie. She has an established name. Which is why she gets so much ink. Which is self-reinforcing.
So what is going on?
You'd better not ask any questions. Nobody asks any questions in the music business. There are endless awards shows, as if the public cares a whit. The majors promote their acts. There's a whole industry of hype but does it reach the public? Most of it does not.
And the public is not getting turned on by music on terrestrial radio, kids are not listening. Hell, if people were listening Audacy wouldn't have declared bankruptcy.
But let's keep shoveling the sh*t and never ask any questions.
Are Taylor Swift's songs in the ballpark of the Beatles? Of New Kids on the Block? Will they be remembered, will they have staying power?
For years we had to hear about all the chart records Mariah Carey broke. Other than her Xmas song, none of them are standards today.
Want a standard? Sublime's "What I Got."
So music today is heard by fewer people and it has less overall cultural impact. But you can't say that in the music industry, then you're seen as pissing on it. It's all up all the time, as the labels skim TikTok artists that are here today and gone tomorrow.
Can we ask any questions?
Like climate change. Half the country won't hear it, no way. And they always come up with some expert to the contrary. But the younger generation, which will inherit the planet, they're very concerned. But they've got very little power. So let's ignore them.
There are so many issues that can't be debated. That if you have an opinion on you must not verbalize it. You don't want to be ostracized, do you?
And this permeates all walks of life, every sector. There is an orthodoxy and it better not be questioned.
Then again, I went to a college with no objective tests, where we didn't discuss the reading in class. Analysis was everything. And that makes me part of a minority. Especially in today's world where college is seen as a glorified trade school. College is about getting a job, right? No one said that when I went to college.
And there's teaching to the test in elementary and secondary school.
And the average citizen can't discern a lie from the truth, never mind ask the questions that will tease out veracity.
I'm not telling you you can't listen to Taylor Swift, or go to her show. She's had more success on the road this year than any other act. Morgan Wallen had a bigger year with new music, but, once again, he's a pariah.
Therefore I start my analysis with acts you've heard of. So there's context. But you dismiss what I say out of hand. I'm not saying you must agree with me, but one thing is for sure, no act today, NO ACT, is as big as one from yesterday, in the pre-internet era. There are too many choices, too many niches, you pull your music, it is not thrust upon you, you don't have to listen to anything you don't want to.
And this is worth looking at. What is going on. Is this the way it's always going to be, or could a single act change the paradigm? And can't we at least accept the truth? That the acts you love might not be loved or even known by the vast majority of people, who don't give a sh*t.
This is the world we live in.
But all we're told is to get off our smartphones, that they're the devil.
Well, good luck getting an Uber, looking up facts, connecting with friends.
We need to accept the present. But that does not mean we can't question it, investigate it.
With knowledge comes power. Gain it. And you do this by looking beneath the surface, doing your best to find out what is really going on.
But today that's a lonely pursuit.
Now I'm going to STFU!
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Re-Killers Of The Flower Moon
I have to disagree on a point you made, "….great movies that take you on a ride, have you leaving your world behind to inhabit a new one, such that when you're placed back in reality you're stunned..."Killers of the Flower Moon" is not that."
Maybe that's because you're a man, and not a woman. Yet another story where women have been used, abused, lied to and discarded, but this was truly horrific. It hurt me inside to watch . Deniro was so good so slimy - he even talked Osage with the Indians. Gee, what a genuine guy (not) I fully empathized with these women. I'm still thinking about about it two days later and have had to go back and watch a few times, because yes, it is too long and so here and there I started to get tired… I'm dying to know if this is a true story , especially the Indian lands and oil... and I thought that Lily Gladstone was beautifully cast.
The music was awesome did you know that it was the eleventh and final collaboration between Scorsese and Robbie Robertson, who died two months prior to the film's release. The film is dedicated to him.
Holly Knight
___________________________________
I waited months to watch this as the trailers looked great, and I love DiCaprio, DeNiro and Marty....but what a bore. Robbie Robertson's score was great and may he RIP....but Gladstone was like a Zombie....sleepwalking through her part....there was zero emotion from anyone except DeNiro....I felt it was unbearable, totally dull and and a huge disappointment and the worst offense a movie can be and that is a total waste of time!
I think you'd get DiCaprio if you watch Catch Me If You Can, and Gangs Of New York ( Maybe His Best). He's really great in those.
But Killers is a dud. It murdered itself with pomposity and a dull heaviness, that puts most everyone asleep who watched it.
Glad you seem to be feeling better.
Leigh Goldstein.
___________________________________
I just finished watching it too. I am also glad I did. However, besides the thing most everyone will say-- it didn't need to be that long-- I will add that two things bugged me while I watched.
First, the way Ernest and Hale and most of the other local whites spoke with one another. By this I mean how they just repeated themselves over and over in a short conversation. The sisters didn't do that, and Bill Smith (go Jason!) didn't either. But after a couple of hours, watching Ernest and King have a conversation was killing me.
Second, I simply could not believe that Mollie would have gone on being so nice to Ernest after it became much more apparent what Hale and his minions were up to with the killings. She knew from the get-go Ernest was (at least partially) marrying her for her money. I wanted her to spit on him, to call him out, to punch him in the face. I wonder if any of that happened in real life.
I also had a small beef about the editing-- the story seemed disjointed-- but I concede that maybe there are things about Scorsese's style that I just don't dig. But overall it's a great piece of work.
Beth Hardy McLennan
___________________________________
Long time reader, first time writer, but I felt compelled to respond to your Killers of the Flower Moon post, since I felt like you got it pretty wrong (when most of the time you get it very right). First of all, you should definitely read the book, which I read before watching the movie. I would challenge you to read the book, and then try re-writing or updating your blog post with that newfound understanding. The book goes into how the author visits the grandchildren of Ernie and Mollie, and learns that he reconnected with his children after getting out of jail. But they always had to live with the fact that Ernie had tried to kill Mollie and his kids that night Mollie's sister's house blew up.
The movie is 95%+ true to the book (it was awhile for me between reading the book and watching the movie, so I can't say for certain it's all true), and the book is 100% true. As for the motives of the characters, the author of the book doesn't go very deep into the motivations of each person, and the movie does a good job or conveying that ambiguity and letting the viewer decide what was going on in each person's head. And Mollie is intended to be played in a way where you can't easily read her thoughts.
As for the movie's length -- yes, it was long, drawn-out, and slow, but so was the systemic killing of the Osage people. Scorcese did a great job of portraying how it was a conscientious choice for Ernie to poison his wife day in and day out, while keeping up the pretenses of a loving marriage for years, even having multiple kids with his wife. It is meant to be uncomfortable and drawn out.
Jessica Wang Kane
___________________________________
Glad you wrote about this. One thing you didn't mention that I think supports your thesis is the roles of modern Americana royalty, Jason Isbell and Sturgill Simpson. I'm a big fan of their music but found their screentime in this pic painful and wanting. It seemed like it was all for the cameo cache and their delivery was flat and uninspired. This was particularly true of the scene between Isbell and DiCaprio when they are waiting together in the living room alone. DiCaprio's expressions are every contortion his face can possibly make, while Isbell lets the words fall out of his mouth with the excitement of a $0.99 slice of cheese.
David Gill
___________________________________
Thank you Bob for writing this.
Finally, someone who shares my exact sentiments on this film, Scorsese, Leo--he will never have what someone/an actor like a Cillian Murphy has, and DeNiro being the star.
I told a friend recently that believing that all of Marty's films are masterpieces is just a placebo effect, because we've been told they are repeatedly.
I did enjoy Lily Gladstone and the unexpected guest appearances by Jason Isbell, Sturgill Simpson, Pete Yorn, and Jack White--but even those didn't make this an amazing work.
Thanks for always being honest with your reviews and observances.
Cheers,
Siria Contreras
___________________________________
Great movie. Did you notice Jason Isbell and Sturgill Simpson? Very pleasantly surprised at how competent they both were with a cast like that. I guess if you can craft a great story in a song, it might be easier to act in someone else's great story?
I have Apple+ along with all the other apps, but I watched "KOTFM" in IMAX the first weekend it went wide 'cos I value that sort of immersive communal experience — saw IMAX versions of "Stop Making Sense" and "Godzilla Minus One" for that reason — but I wish I would have waited to see it at home.
Coming off watching the third and final season of "Reservation Dogs" (FX on Hulu), I wanted "KOTFM" to foreground the horror story of Osage genocide by bureaucracy, of extermination by rubber stamp and cheap booze. Instead, I got a tonal mishmash of three different films that lacked any hybrid vigor and felt longer than it was.
The sound design and photography were beyond reproach, and the coda — both metatextual and moving — sits among the best things Scorsese has ever done. But I've never felt more disconnected from the critical acclaim and my first impression, so much so that I'm almost moved to give it another try, from the comfort of my couch. But I won't.
Erick Haight
___________________________________
I've begun questioning people who praise Gladstone and DiCaprio's performances. I would hardly call what they did good and the movie was far and away the most overrated of the year… and that's saying something for a movie that came out the same year as Oppenheimer.
Michael Vorhees
___________________________________
Oppenheimer was 10 times better than Killers of the Flower Moon and it will win best picture.
Robert Pisaneschi
___________________________________
lol. Wrong. So so wrong.
"This is an epic movie, which will probably win the Oscar for Best Picture…"
Oppenheimer will win that award And BEST DIRECTOR, among many, like it did a day or so ago at The Critics Choice Awards.
Steve Sequeira
Middletown, Rhode Island
___________________________________
Did you watch Maestro? I couldn't watch more than about thirty minutes. I thought it was a steaming pile of crap.
Harold Love
___________________________________
I really appreciate you reviewing and shining a light on "Killers of the Flower Moon", Bob. I did venture out to a brand new theater to view it. The cushy reclining seats were a bonus. I was ready for the long screening, but in all honesty, the three hours and 26 minutes felt like 90 minutes to me. I was glued and wired in. Although a New Englander, I had done my student teaching on the Navajo Indian Reservation in the mid 70's. That direct experience sensitized me to Native American culture. I have been an active supporter of Indigenous Peoples' causes ever since. I happen to love Scorcese's brilliant film. And the only problem I have with your review, is your take on the female lead, Lily Gladstone. You have to realize, Bob, that most in most Native Tribes, it is common for folks to be soft spoken. My students were quiet to a fault, very respectful of their elders, even to a young teacher in my case. I believe Lily's performance was spot on, understated, quiet, mysterious. And like all great actors, the magic was in her eyes and her facial expressions. Kudos to Marty, who as a film elder, delivered an important masterpiece.
Cob Carlson
___________________________________
I saw it in the theater and I'm glad I did as it looked amazing on the big screen (as all Scorsese films do...props to Thelma Schoonmaker!). And I really enjoyed the film overall like you did. But to me, it wasn't as good as my two favorites of the year (Poor Things and Oppenheimer) because it had elements of what I had seen before from Marty.
For instance, at one point I was expecting DeNiro to tell Lily Gladstone to go look at some new dresses he just got that were down a dark alley because it felt like him once again doing clean up duty like he did after the Lufthansa heist from Goodfellas. It was a very good film, just not his best. However, I could say that Christopher Nolan just released his best film to date as well as Yorgos Lanthimos.
That's my two cents.
Jaime Feldman
___________________________________
Molly is such a strong character and no dummy. De Caprio's character was vapid and a complete lazy-ass with no backbone of any kind. The romance to me was not convincing. What was the attraction? He wasn't even charming in a dumb sorta way. And why did she let him keep injecting her as she was clearly getting worse and worse? -- and it wasn't like he was out there taking care of business while she was wasting away. So their story did not hold up for me and that was a giant hole in the plot. De Niro is always De Niro no matter what character he is playing. They just change the costumes and the scenery. Don't shoot me, De Niro fans.
Karma Martell
___________________________________
I hear you regarding Killers of the Flower Moon, amazing to look at, I did read the book and it gives a different look into the Osage Tribe, more nuanced, more details fleshed out.Marty had to pick one of the many characters in the book and make it his primary story arc.The book also gives us more on the birth of the FBI. I , too, watched at home in two separate sections , worked well . It is a great movie , see De Niro shine , it's a story we need to know.
Gerry Lauderdale
___________________________________
I agree with your assessment Bob. I watched it in the theater and did squirm at about the 2.5- 3.0 hours mark.
I went to see it because I am an admirer of Robbie Robertson's work. It would be his last soundtrack.
I think this work would have been close to his heart because of his indigenous roots.
Good to see the soundtrack has been nominated for an Oscar.
The soundtrack was more blues influenced than I thought it would be, given the historical context/location of the film.
I would have like to have heard the Charlie Crockett song in the movie, even over the end credits, but didn't.
Good also to hear a mention in the film by Leonardo's character re: insulin being from T.O.
That's where Banting and Best discovered it- at the University of Toronto.
Even though there are many films shot in T.O, it's unusual to hear Toronto mentioned in a film.
Perhaps that was to be completist re: factual details of the film and likely it's just a coincidence that Robbie Robertson was also from Toronto.
Ultimately it is a sad movie because of the very sad tale that it tells.
Paul Sanderson
___________________________________
Just read your comments on "Killers Of The Flower Moon" -- and you're right -- it should have been a mini-series.
While the film is terrific, especially the first hour which dazzles, it also left me thinking that it could have been more. That Scorsese had the original script completely rewritten after he got to know the Osage is well-known now. But you have to think that some elements weren't quite massaged well enough.
The Osage struck oil. Then they're rich. But you don't see the effects of this enough. Beyond that, one of the biggest issues is that it's unclear what motivates DiCaprio's character. If it was greed, then you didn't see that. Was it to impress? Because he could?
Lily Gladstone's character IS memorable. But it also seemed as if all of the sisters spent the duration of the film being sick. You wish there was enough time spent building their personalities up so that viewers could feel for them more.
DeNiro is superb and is the anchor of the film. But the film didn't build to a stunning conclusion -- unless you want to include that fairly unique concluding scene. All of the cards were laid out on the table well beforehand.
So again, as visually stunning as it was and as good as some of the performances were, you just get the feeling that it could have been even better -- a true classic even -- if some storylines were given more play and allowed to breathe.
I wrote more about it here for those who are interested.
Thanks...Scott Murphy
___________________________________
I watched on Apple over three nights. I liked it, but didn't think it was amazing. I was particularly disappointed by the ending - the radio drama seemed like a cheap narrative device. Like Martin ran out of gas or was suddenly in a hurry to finish.
James Welby
___________________________________
Rarely touches your heart?
You must be a cold SOB, sorry to say.
Joanne Schenendorf
___________________________________
I loved the book and it really informs the film which leaves a lot out related to the hows and whys surrounding guardianships and the formation of the FBI. Grann is granular (pun intended) but he ultimately pays it off in the end.
Barry Blumberg
___________________________________
Because of the interior nature of the film, after I watched it I wish I watched at home. Excellent movie .
Peter
___________________________________
Saw Killers Of The Flower Moon the Friday it was released in the evening after a full day of work. I knew not to get a drink before the film or during, so after the credits rolled I hightailed it to the men's room to pish. I really liked the movie and especially the end as the radio drama, but my favorite movie of 2023 was The Holdovers.
If you haven't seen it yet, I hope you do and I'd like to read your thoughts on that one.
Russ Turk
___________________________________
Agree with everything you say about this movie, especially Gladstone's performance.
Steven Powell
___________________________________
Agree on the film, the book is a great Joe Friday true crime book. Easier to read than The Wager for mine.
Phil Bonanno
___________________________________
You know how I know you saw this at home? OK because you started with that, but also because you didn't even mention an incredibly crucial aspect of the film and to seeing the film as it was intended to be seen in theaters: Robbie Robertson's brilliant score.
You want arc? How about considering the arc of Robertson and Scorcese's musical collaborations over the years? Among the many brilliant stories told in 'Killers of the Flower Moon' and in the making of the film, one of them is how this final project between these two ends up being some of Robertson's most emotional, personal, and gripping film work, something seeing the film in theaters drives home.
I did a podcast about the film and about how brilliant DeNiro, DiCaprio, Lily Gladstone, Scorcese, Robertson and so many aspects of this film are.
It's really Scorcese's defining masterpiece: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/full-cast-and-crew/id1438276325?i=1000632654537
To quote yourself to yourself: you won't listen to this but you should. And the good news is you can pee whenever you want when listening to it.
Jason Cilo
___________________________________
Saw it in the theatre a month or two ago. I agree with every single point you made. We want so badly to experience excellence with recent art. Yet, it just doesn't seem to get there. Same with Leo. I really, really like him, but it feels like I'm watching a guy who in the aggregate is a bit this and a bit that. Yet, he falls short of being transcendent, like this film. My dad has a saying when I send him new music, that he just knows too much. And when what you know and where you come from is exceptional, difficult for the new kid in town to make a mark.
Marty Winsch
PS - The piss I took after the movie ended was better than sex.
PSS - What's Eating Gilbert Grape…I dig that Leo.
___________________________________
Agree with many of your points, I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone and my initial thoughts were to rename it "Killers of the lost time" as there's plenty of other things I could've been doing. I continued watching partly out of respect for Scorcese but also with the faint hope that something interesting would happen. That's not to diminish the importance of the story as it needed telling, it's just a shame it couldn't have been told with engrossing acting performances and a little more intrigue. I pretty much knew what was going to happen next all the way through as any tension was pre-framed sloppily. DiCaprio"s deviousness could have easily been confused stupidity as I wasn't ever clear what was really going on in his brain and therefore the development of a main character leaves big questions. DeNiro was the highlight but only stood out with generally flat performances across the board.
Nikky French
___________________________________
This is a first, my first ever answer to a Lefsetz letter.
For a reason: I can absolutely relate to every single word you've written. That's exactly how I felt in the theater. A powerful movie with an incredible story that needed to be told, no doubt. With possibly the best De Niro in ages. And yet something was missing that would have made the movie a masterpiece. It's also down to Di Caprio's role, which is just a little too one-dimensional and dull. It's hard to believe that he doesn't undergo any kind of transformation in the course of the movie, that he's so incapable of really liberating things.
Thanks for that, all the best
Torsten Gross
___________________________________
Spot on film criticism of Killers Of The Flower Moon. I watched it with my wife. It's her type of movie. She loves historical fiction, and is particularly drawn to books and films that tell the stories of women and minorities in America's past.
I tapped out after an hour. She made it through two hours, but said she just couldn't finish it.
I know it's blasphemy, but I've said for years that Scorsese needs an editor. His ideas for movies are great, but generally the execution is too meandering. Maybe your analysis that the films are "flat" is the right one. I feel they're generally disjointed. And this film was definitely both. Looked great, interesting topic, but the story wasn't cohesive or that compelling. The last thing I loved of his was The Departed, but even the films before that like Gangs of New York did not live up to their potential give the subject matter and casts.
I do disagree that this is the best of the Best Picture nominees. I thought both Oppenheimer and Barbie were better films. Barbie won't win, but I'd vote for Oppenheimer over Flower Moon.
Side note, Oldman is fantastic in Slow Horses. Without him, that's a mediocre series, but his performance kept me coming back for every episode.
Seth Keller
___________________________________
I watched it in the theater. I, like you, was worried about the dash to the facilities. And I also made it all the way through without any trouble. I enjoyed it, thought it was great. I saw it in Helsinki and my date was shocked that it was based on a true story.
When I got home and remembered it was coming on Apple I was kinda sorry.
Oh well. At least I'm waking on Napoleon.
Tracy Lipp
___________________________________
I felt the same way about Oppenheimer: An amazing story rendered flat and forgettable. I'm wondering if you've seen the absolutely wonderful but hard to find Sam Watterson version of Oppenheimer, created by PBS in the 1980. Comparatively it's low budget but far more informative and engaging than Christopher Nolan's overwrought epic. While watching the recent monstrosity, almost scene by scene, and character by character, I kept thinking back on the 1980 version, where I learned far more of what actually happened from pre Manhattan Project to the conflicts over the development of the "super" bomb and Robert's ultimate disgrace. And as good as Matt Damon is, his General Grove lacked any real depth. To this day, everytime I see Sam Watterson on any of a million cop shows, I still see him as the real Oppenheimer.
If you haven't seen it, this is highly recommended if you can find it. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078037/
wolfereeno
___________________________________
I have not seen Killers Of The Flower Moon yet, but now that it's on Apple TV and because I am a huge Scorsese fan it is a must see. I'm always interested to read your commentary on how the younger generation(s) experience music and movies. I'll be 50 in March and have a son who will turn 12 in February. So, when I read your comments I naturally compare it to what I am experiencing at home, raising my son. You're not far off on a lot of things. Music doesn't matter as much to my son and his friends as it did us. His favorite band is AC/DC and that's because they play their songs at NFL games which he then hears on the Madden video games for his X-Box. Thanks to his mother and me, he's been exposed to a wide variety of music, so I take comfort in that.
Movies, however, are different. Years ago I introduced my son to IMDB. My son loves lists and loves ranking things. So, the fact that IMDB has user ratings for every movie ever made and has a Top 250 list has instilled in my son a desire to watch the classics and understand why they are so highly regarded. Over the summer my son and I watched the entire Breaking Bad series (judge me for exposing him to violence at such a young age), which then led to us watching Better Call Saul. If you've seen these shows you then know Better Call Saul is much more character driven, which to a younger person may be boring. There was an episode where Jimmy McGill was sharing a dinner with his brother Chuck and his wife (a flashback scene). On the table Chuck and his wife were enjoying glasses of wine while Jimmy was drinking a bottle of beer. I asked my son if he understood what they were trying to accomplish with that and in his own way perfectly described that they were somehow trying to illustrate that Chuck existed in a higher class than Jimmy. He understood exactly the idea of character exposition and development. There have been many moments like this and his undying desire to see classics like The Godfather, Casablanca and others along with modern day movies gives me hope that there are others out there like him, which hopefully will give way to a wider variety and, yes, something deeper than superhero franchises in the near future.
Neil Johnson
___________________________________
I agree with you on this film. Good, but not greatness.
The feeling you describe of staring at a black screen when it's over and done with, I experienced that this past weekend when I finished the series 1883.
It was phenomenal with amazing writing in my opinion. I just sat there afterwards, thinking. Reflecting. And then praising it to all of my group chats, saying it's one of the best shows I've seen in recent memory.
I highly recommend you check out 1883 if you haven't already. It's a single season show on Paramount+ - 10 episodes. I'd be very interested in your take on that show - whether it impacts you the way it impacted me.
Omar Zulfi
___________________________________
We saw it on the big screen and were immensely relieved when it was finally over. "The English" was better. Scorcese's film, like others we have seen in the past year, is too long. Why? They have lengthy sections that just coast on a theme that has already made its point. There is no development, narrative, character or otherwise for a significant chunk of the film. Just unnecessary repetition of a plot point. We just saw Poor Things...same thing. Asteroid City...same (alright, it was quirky, but still...). I binged season one of "Vigil" on the BBC iPlayer on my Macbook Pro and it was way better than "...Flower Moon". It was produced by the same company that did the "Line of Duty" series.
Robert Bond
___________________________________
I saw Killers of the Flower Moon twice in theaters. After I saw it the first time, I knew I wanted to see it again. Like a lot of the best films, it is a much richer experience on a second viewing; knowing the story the second time around allowed me to focus more on the artistic flourishes and thematic elements that are so important to Scorsese. I love how it subverts the standard narrative of the Western and really becomes an interrogation of American history. It may not have the kind of dramatic peaks that you write about, but the flatness that you note in Scorsese's work is what makes his films so potent for me. He's not really going for the typical narrative that we're used to; he's trying to get us to think. I know that might not be the reason why a lot of people go to the movies, but at this stage in Scorsese's career I forgive him that indulgence. He's an old man, and he's trying to apply the wisdom of a long life to his art.
I love the performances in this film. Leo DiCaprio is terrific in an incredibly understated way. How many actors would willingly play a role that requires them to diminish themselves in front of the camera? That's what Leo does here in taking all the shine off of his persona and playing a dunce. It's the kind of work that most Hollywood stars don't do because they're more concerned about their image. He's really shown himself as the proper heir to Jack Nicholson or Gene Hackman, both of whom played such roles to perfection (see The Conversation for Hackman, and The Last Detail and Ironweed for Nicholson).
I think time will show this film to be one of the great American films of its era, and that it will become more appreciated as the years pass. If you are able to watch it again, I'd encourage you to. I know it's a big ask in terms of time investment, but this movie rewards it.
Take care,
Wes R. Benash
___________________________________
One of your best writings/insights IMHO.
" in a world where technology has delivered so much physical perfection we're looking for something a bit flawed, a bit human, that makes us feel alive… We seem to have lost the art of chiaroscuro analysis. Something is either good or bad, period. Shades of gray are not allowed. But it's in the shadows that things are unclear, where life and the mind truly live…"
Great stuff, Thanks!
Shepherd Stevenson
Los Angeles
___________________________________
"in a world where technology has delivered so much physical perfection we're looking for something a bit flawed, a bit human, that makes us feel alive"
I think the last time a new movie did this for me was "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri." Or maybe "Jackass Forever."
C'est la vie.
Brian Howell
___________________________________
"Something is either good or bad, period. Shades of gray are not allowed."
Especially in politics and the news media, where nuance is non-existent.
It's almost like society itself transitioned from analog technology to digital technology, where everything is either 1 or 0.
Craig Anderton
Maybe that's because you're a man, and not a woman. Yet another story where women have been used, abused, lied to and discarded, but this was truly horrific. It hurt me inside to watch . Deniro was so good so slimy - he even talked Osage with the Indians. Gee, what a genuine guy (not) I fully empathized with these women. I'm still thinking about about it two days later and have had to go back and watch a few times, because yes, it is too long and so here and there I started to get tired… I'm dying to know if this is a true story , especially the Indian lands and oil... and I thought that Lily Gladstone was beautifully cast.
The music was awesome did you know that it was the eleventh and final collaboration between Scorsese and Robbie Robertson, who died two months prior to the film's release. The film is dedicated to him.
Holly Knight
___________________________________
I waited months to watch this as the trailers looked great, and I love DiCaprio, DeNiro and Marty....but what a bore. Robbie Robertson's score was great and may he RIP....but Gladstone was like a Zombie....sleepwalking through her part....there was zero emotion from anyone except DeNiro....I felt it was unbearable, totally dull and and a huge disappointment and the worst offense a movie can be and that is a total waste of time!
I think you'd get DiCaprio if you watch Catch Me If You Can, and Gangs Of New York ( Maybe His Best). He's really great in those.
But Killers is a dud. It murdered itself with pomposity and a dull heaviness, that puts most everyone asleep who watched it.
Glad you seem to be feeling better.
Leigh Goldstein.
___________________________________
I just finished watching it too. I am also glad I did. However, besides the thing most everyone will say-- it didn't need to be that long-- I will add that two things bugged me while I watched.
First, the way Ernest and Hale and most of the other local whites spoke with one another. By this I mean how they just repeated themselves over and over in a short conversation. The sisters didn't do that, and Bill Smith (go Jason!) didn't either. But after a couple of hours, watching Ernest and King have a conversation was killing me.
Second, I simply could not believe that Mollie would have gone on being so nice to Ernest after it became much more apparent what Hale and his minions were up to with the killings. She knew from the get-go Ernest was (at least partially) marrying her for her money. I wanted her to spit on him, to call him out, to punch him in the face. I wonder if any of that happened in real life.
I also had a small beef about the editing-- the story seemed disjointed-- but I concede that maybe there are things about Scorsese's style that I just don't dig. But overall it's a great piece of work.
Beth Hardy McLennan
___________________________________
Long time reader, first time writer, but I felt compelled to respond to your Killers of the Flower Moon post, since I felt like you got it pretty wrong (when most of the time you get it very right). First of all, you should definitely read the book, which I read before watching the movie. I would challenge you to read the book, and then try re-writing or updating your blog post with that newfound understanding. The book goes into how the author visits the grandchildren of Ernie and Mollie, and learns that he reconnected with his children after getting out of jail. But they always had to live with the fact that Ernie had tried to kill Mollie and his kids that night Mollie's sister's house blew up.
The movie is 95%+ true to the book (it was awhile for me between reading the book and watching the movie, so I can't say for certain it's all true), and the book is 100% true. As for the motives of the characters, the author of the book doesn't go very deep into the motivations of each person, and the movie does a good job or conveying that ambiguity and letting the viewer decide what was going on in each person's head. And Mollie is intended to be played in a way where you can't easily read her thoughts.
As for the movie's length -- yes, it was long, drawn-out, and slow, but so was the systemic killing of the Osage people. Scorcese did a great job of portraying how it was a conscientious choice for Ernie to poison his wife day in and day out, while keeping up the pretenses of a loving marriage for years, even having multiple kids with his wife. It is meant to be uncomfortable and drawn out.
Jessica Wang Kane
___________________________________
Glad you wrote about this. One thing you didn't mention that I think supports your thesis is the roles of modern Americana royalty, Jason Isbell and Sturgill Simpson. I'm a big fan of their music but found their screentime in this pic painful and wanting. It seemed like it was all for the cameo cache and their delivery was flat and uninspired. This was particularly true of the scene between Isbell and DiCaprio when they are waiting together in the living room alone. DiCaprio's expressions are every contortion his face can possibly make, while Isbell lets the words fall out of his mouth with the excitement of a $0.99 slice of cheese.
David Gill
___________________________________
Thank you Bob for writing this.
Finally, someone who shares my exact sentiments on this film, Scorsese, Leo--he will never have what someone/an actor like a Cillian Murphy has, and DeNiro being the star.
I told a friend recently that believing that all of Marty's films are masterpieces is just a placebo effect, because we've been told they are repeatedly.
I did enjoy Lily Gladstone and the unexpected guest appearances by Jason Isbell, Sturgill Simpson, Pete Yorn, and Jack White--but even those didn't make this an amazing work.
Thanks for always being honest with your reviews and observances.
Cheers,
Siria Contreras
___________________________________
Great movie. Did you notice Jason Isbell and Sturgill Simpson? Very pleasantly surprised at how competent they both were with a cast like that. I guess if you can craft a great story in a song, it might be easier to act in someone else's great story?
I have Apple+ along with all the other apps, but I watched "KOTFM" in IMAX the first weekend it went wide 'cos I value that sort of immersive communal experience — saw IMAX versions of "Stop Making Sense" and "Godzilla Minus One" for that reason — but I wish I would have waited to see it at home.
Coming off watching the third and final season of "Reservation Dogs" (FX on Hulu), I wanted "KOTFM" to foreground the horror story of Osage genocide by bureaucracy, of extermination by rubber stamp and cheap booze. Instead, I got a tonal mishmash of three different films that lacked any hybrid vigor and felt longer than it was.
The sound design and photography were beyond reproach, and the coda — both metatextual and moving — sits among the best things Scorsese has ever done. But I've never felt more disconnected from the critical acclaim and my first impression, so much so that I'm almost moved to give it another try, from the comfort of my couch. But I won't.
Erick Haight
___________________________________
I've begun questioning people who praise Gladstone and DiCaprio's performances. I would hardly call what they did good and the movie was far and away the most overrated of the year… and that's saying something for a movie that came out the same year as Oppenheimer.
Michael Vorhees
___________________________________
Oppenheimer was 10 times better than Killers of the Flower Moon and it will win best picture.
Robert Pisaneschi
___________________________________
lol. Wrong. So so wrong.
"This is an epic movie, which will probably win the Oscar for Best Picture…"
Oppenheimer will win that award And BEST DIRECTOR, among many, like it did a day or so ago at The Critics Choice Awards.
Steve Sequeira
Middletown, Rhode Island
___________________________________
Did you watch Maestro? I couldn't watch more than about thirty minutes. I thought it was a steaming pile of crap.
Harold Love
___________________________________
I really appreciate you reviewing and shining a light on "Killers of the Flower Moon", Bob. I did venture out to a brand new theater to view it. The cushy reclining seats were a bonus. I was ready for the long screening, but in all honesty, the three hours and 26 minutes felt like 90 minutes to me. I was glued and wired in. Although a New Englander, I had done my student teaching on the Navajo Indian Reservation in the mid 70's. That direct experience sensitized me to Native American culture. I have been an active supporter of Indigenous Peoples' causes ever since. I happen to love Scorcese's brilliant film. And the only problem I have with your review, is your take on the female lead, Lily Gladstone. You have to realize, Bob, that most in most Native Tribes, it is common for folks to be soft spoken. My students were quiet to a fault, very respectful of their elders, even to a young teacher in my case. I believe Lily's performance was spot on, understated, quiet, mysterious. And like all great actors, the magic was in her eyes and her facial expressions. Kudos to Marty, who as a film elder, delivered an important masterpiece.
Cob Carlson
___________________________________
I saw it in the theater and I'm glad I did as it looked amazing on the big screen (as all Scorsese films do...props to Thelma Schoonmaker!). And I really enjoyed the film overall like you did. But to me, it wasn't as good as my two favorites of the year (Poor Things and Oppenheimer) because it had elements of what I had seen before from Marty.
For instance, at one point I was expecting DeNiro to tell Lily Gladstone to go look at some new dresses he just got that were down a dark alley because it felt like him once again doing clean up duty like he did after the Lufthansa heist from Goodfellas. It was a very good film, just not his best. However, I could say that Christopher Nolan just released his best film to date as well as Yorgos Lanthimos.
That's my two cents.
Jaime Feldman
___________________________________
Molly is such a strong character and no dummy. De Caprio's character was vapid and a complete lazy-ass with no backbone of any kind. The romance to me was not convincing. What was the attraction? He wasn't even charming in a dumb sorta way. And why did she let him keep injecting her as she was clearly getting worse and worse? -- and it wasn't like he was out there taking care of business while she was wasting away. So their story did not hold up for me and that was a giant hole in the plot. De Niro is always De Niro no matter what character he is playing. They just change the costumes and the scenery. Don't shoot me, De Niro fans.
Karma Martell
___________________________________
I hear you regarding Killers of the Flower Moon, amazing to look at, I did read the book and it gives a different look into the Osage Tribe, more nuanced, more details fleshed out.Marty had to pick one of the many characters in the book and make it his primary story arc.The book also gives us more on the birth of the FBI. I , too, watched at home in two separate sections , worked well . It is a great movie , see De Niro shine , it's a story we need to know.
Gerry Lauderdale
___________________________________
I agree with your assessment Bob. I watched it in the theater and did squirm at about the 2.5- 3.0 hours mark.
I went to see it because I am an admirer of Robbie Robertson's work. It would be his last soundtrack.
I think this work would have been close to his heart because of his indigenous roots.
Good to see the soundtrack has been nominated for an Oscar.
The soundtrack was more blues influenced than I thought it would be, given the historical context/location of the film.
I would have like to have heard the Charlie Crockett song in the movie, even over the end credits, but didn't.
Good also to hear a mention in the film by Leonardo's character re: insulin being from T.O.
That's where Banting and Best discovered it- at the University of Toronto.
Even though there are many films shot in T.O, it's unusual to hear Toronto mentioned in a film.
Perhaps that was to be completist re: factual details of the film and likely it's just a coincidence that Robbie Robertson was also from Toronto.
Ultimately it is a sad movie because of the very sad tale that it tells.
Paul Sanderson
___________________________________
Just read your comments on "Killers Of The Flower Moon" -- and you're right -- it should have been a mini-series.
While the film is terrific, especially the first hour which dazzles, it also left me thinking that it could have been more. That Scorsese had the original script completely rewritten after he got to know the Osage is well-known now. But you have to think that some elements weren't quite massaged well enough.
The Osage struck oil. Then they're rich. But you don't see the effects of this enough. Beyond that, one of the biggest issues is that it's unclear what motivates DiCaprio's character. If it was greed, then you didn't see that. Was it to impress? Because he could?
Lily Gladstone's character IS memorable. But it also seemed as if all of the sisters spent the duration of the film being sick. You wish there was enough time spent building their personalities up so that viewers could feel for them more.
DeNiro is superb and is the anchor of the film. But the film didn't build to a stunning conclusion -- unless you want to include that fairly unique concluding scene. All of the cards were laid out on the table well beforehand.
So again, as visually stunning as it was and as good as some of the performances were, you just get the feeling that it could have been even better -- a true classic even -- if some storylines were given more play and allowed to breathe.
I wrote more about it here for those who are interested.
Thanks...Scott Murphy
___________________________________
I watched on Apple over three nights. I liked it, but didn't think it was amazing. I was particularly disappointed by the ending - the radio drama seemed like a cheap narrative device. Like Martin ran out of gas or was suddenly in a hurry to finish.
James Welby
___________________________________
Rarely touches your heart?
You must be a cold SOB, sorry to say.
Joanne Schenendorf
___________________________________
I loved the book and it really informs the film which leaves a lot out related to the hows and whys surrounding guardianships and the formation of the FBI. Grann is granular (pun intended) but he ultimately pays it off in the end.
Barry Blumberg
___________________________________
Because of the interior nature of the film, after I watched it I wish I watched at home. Excellent movie .
Peter
___________________________________
Saw Killers Of The Flower Moon the Friday it was released in the evening after a full day of work. I knew not to get a drink before the film or during, so after the credits rolled I hightailed it to the men's room to pish. I really liked the movie and especially the end as the radio drama, but my favorite movie of 2023 was The Holdovers.
If you haven't seen it yet, I hope you do and I'd like to read your thoughts on that one.
Russ Turk
___________________________________
Agree with everything you say about this movie, especially Gladstone's performance.
Steven Powell
___________________________________
Agree on the film, the book is a great Joe Friday true crime book. Easier to read than The Wager for mine.
Phil Bonanno
___________________________________
You know how I know you saw this at home? OK because you started with that, but also because you didn't even mention an incredibly crucial aspect of the film and to seeing the film as it was intended to be seen in theaters: Robbie Robertson's brilliant score.
You want arc? How about considering the arc of Robertson and Scorcese's musical collaborations over the years? Among the many brilliant stories told in 'Killers of the Flower Moon' and in the making of the film, one of them is how this final project between these two ends up being some of Robertson's most emotional, personal, and gripping film work, something seeing the film in theaters drives home.
I did a podcast about the film and about how brilliant DeNiro, DiCaprio, Lily Gladstone, Scorcese, Robertson and so many aspects of this film are.
It's really Scorcese's defining masterpiece: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/full-cast-and-crew/id1438276325?i=1000632654537
To quote yourself to yourself: you won't listen to this but you should. And the good news is you can pee whenever you want when listening to it.
Jason Cilo
___________________________________
Saw it in the theatre a month or two ago. I agree with every single point you made. We want so badly to experience excellence with recent art. Yet, it just doesn't seem to get there. Same with Leo. I really, really like him, but it feels like I'm watching a guy who in the aggregate is a bit this and a bit that. Yet, he falls short of being transcendent, like this film. My dad has a saying when I send him new music, that he just knows too much. And when what you know and where you come from is exceptional, difficult for the new kid in town to make a mark.
Marty Winsch
PS - The piss I took after the movie ended was better than sex.
PSS - What's Eating Gilbert Grape…I dig that Leo.
___________________________________
Agree with many of your points, I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone and my initial thoughts were to rename it "Killers of the lost time" as there's plenty of other things I could've been doing. I continued watching partly out of respect for Scorcese but also with the faint hope that something interesting would happen. That's not to diminish the importance of the story as it needed telling, it's just a shame it couldn't have been told with engrossing acting performances and a little more intrigue. I pretty much knew what was going to happen next all the way through as any tension was pre-framed sloppily. DiCaprio"s deviousness could have easily been confused stupidity as I wasn't ever clear what was really going on in his brain and therefore the development of a main character leaves big questions. DeNiro was the highlight but only stood out with generally flat performances across the board.
Nikky French
___________________________________
This is a first, my first ever answer to a Lefsetz letter.
For a reason: I can absolutely relate to every single word you've written. That's exactly how I felt in the theater. A powerful movie with an incredible story that needed to be told, no doubt. With possibly the best De Niro in ages. And yet something was missing that would have made the movie a masterpiece. It's also down to Di Caprio's role, which is just a little too one-dimensional and dull. It's hard to believe that he doesn't undergo any kind of transformation in the course of the movie, that he's so incapable of really liberating things.
Thanks for that, all the best
Torsten Gross
___________________________________
Spot on film criticism of Killers Of The Flower Moon. I watched it with my wife. It's her type of movie. She loves historical fiction, and is particularly drawn to books and films that tell the stories of women and minorities in America's past.
I tapped out after an hour. She made it through two hours, but said she just couldn't finish it.
I know it's blasphemy, but I've said for years that Scorsese needs an editor. His ideas for movies are great, but generally the execution is too meandering. Maybe your analysis that the films are "flat" is the right one. I feel they're generally disjointed. And this film was definitely both. Looked great, interesting topic, but the story wasn't cohesive or that compelling. The last thing I loved of his was The Departed, but even the films before that like Gangs of New York did not live up to their potential give the subject matter and casts.
I do disagree that this is the best of the Best Picture nominees. I thought both Oppenheimer and Barbie were better films. Barbie won't win, but I'd vote for Oppenheimer over Flower Moon.
Side note, Oldman is fantastic in Slow Horses. Without him, that's a mediocre series, but his performance kept me coming back for every episode.
Seth Keller
___________________________________
I watched it in the theater. I, like you, was worried about the dash to the facilities. And I also made it all the way through without any trouble. I enjoyed it, thought it was great. I saw it in Helsinki and my date was shocked that it was based on a true story.
When I got home and remembered it was coming on Apple I was kinda sorry.
Oh well. At least I'm waking on Napoleon.
Tracy Lipp
___________________________________
I felt the same way about Oppenheimer: An amazing story rendered flat and forgettable. I'm wondering if you've seen the absolutely wonderful but hard to find Sam Watterson version of Oppenheimer, created by PBS in the 1980. Comparatively it's low budget but far more informative and engaging than Christopher Nolan's overwrought epic. While watching the recent monstrosity, almost scene by scene, and character by character, I kept thinking back on the 1980 version, where I learned far more of what actually happened from pre Manhattan Project to the conflicts over the development of the "super" bomb and Robert's ultimate disgrace. And as good as Matt Damon is, his General Grove lacked any real depth. To this day, everytime I see Sam Watterson on any of a million cop shows, I still see him as the real Oppenheimer.
If you haven't seen it, this is highly recommended if you can find it. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078037/
wolfereeno
___________________________________
I have not seen Killers Of The Flower Moon yet, but now that it's on Apple TV and because I am a huge Scorsese fan it is a must see. I'm always interested to read your commentary on how the younger generation(s) experience music and movies. I'll be 50 in March and have a son who will turn 12 in February. So, when I read your comments I naturally compare it to what I am experiencing at home, raising my son. You're not far off on a lot of things. Music doesn't matter as much to my son and his friends as it did us. His favorite band is AC/DC and that's because they play their songs at NFL games which he then hears on the Madden video games for his X-Box. Thanks to his mother and me, he's been exposed to a wide variety of music, so I take comfort in that.
Movies, however, are different. Years ago I introduced my son to IMDB. My son loves lists and loves ranking things. So, the fact that IMDB has user ratings for every movie ever made and has a Top 250 list has instilled in my son a desire to watch the classics and understand why they are so highly regarded. Over the summer my son and I watched the entire Breaking Bad series (judge me for exposing him to violence at such a young age), which then led to us watching Better Call Saul. If you've seen these shows you then know Better Call Saul is much more character driven, which to a younger person may be boring. There was an episode where Jimmy McGill was sharing a dinner with his brother Chuck and his wife (a flashback scene). On the table Chuck and his wife were enjoying glasses of wine while Jimmy was drinking a bottle of beer. I asked my son if he understood what they were trying to accomplish with that and in his own way perfectly described that they were somehow trying to illustrate that Chuck existed in a higher class than Jimmy. He understood exactly the idea of character exposition and development. There have been many moments like this and his undying desire to see classics like The Godfather, Casablanca and others along with modern day movies gives me hope that there are others out there like him, which hopefully will give way to a wider variety and, yes, something deeper than superhero franchises in the near future.
Neil Johnson
___________________________________
I agree with you on this film. Good, but not greatness.
The feeling you describe of staring at a black screen when it's over and done with, I experienced that this past weekend when I finished the series 1883.
It was phenomenal with amazing writing in my opinion. I just sat there afterwards, thinking. Reflecting. And then praising it to all of my group chats, saying it's one of the best shows I've seen in recent memory.
I highly recommend you check out 1883 if you haven't already. It's a single season show on Paramount+ - 10 episodes. I'd be very interested in your take on that show - whether it impacts you the way it impacted me.
Omar Zulfi
___________________________________
We saw it on the big screen and were immensely relieved when it was finally over. "The English" was better. Scorcese's film, like others we have seen in the past year, is too long. Why? They have lengthy sections that just coast on a theme that has already made its point. There is no development, narrative, character or otherwise for a significant chunk of the film. Just unnecessary repetition of a plot point. We just saw Poor Things...same thing. Asteroid City...same (alright, it was quirky, but still...). I binged season one of "Vigil" on the BBC iPlayer on my Macbook Pro and it was way better than "...Flower Moon". It was produced by the same company that did the "Line of Duty" series.
Robert Bond
___________________________________
I saw Killers of the Flower Moon twice in theaters. After I saw it the first time, I knew I wanted to see it again. Like a lot of the best films, it is a much richer experience on a second viewing; knowing the story the second time around allowed me to focus more on the artistic flourishes and thematic elements that are so important to Scorsese. I love how it subverts the standard narrative of the Western and really becomes an interrogation of American history. It may not have the kind of dramatic peaks that you write about, but the flatness that you note in Scorsese's work is what makes his films so potent for me. He's not really going for the typical narrative that we're used to; he's trying to get us to think. I know that might not be the reason why a lot of people go to the movies, but at this stage in Scorsese's career I forgive him that indulgence. He's an old man, and he's trying to apply the wisdom of a long life to his art.
I love the performances in this film. Leo DiCaprio is terrific in an incredibly understated way. How many actors would willingly play a role that requires them to diminish themselves in front of the camera? That's what Leo does here in taking all the shine off of his persona and playing a dunce. It's the kind of work that most Hollywood stars don't do because they're more concerned about their image. He's really shown himself as the proper heir to Jack Nicholson or Gene Hackman, both of whom played such roles to perfection (see The Conversation for Hackman, and The Last Detail and Ironweed for Nicholson).
I think time will show this film to be one of the great American films of its era, and that it will become more appreciated as the years pass. If you are able to watch it again, I'd encourage you to. I know it's a big ask in terms of time investment, but this movie rewards it.
Take care,
Wes R. Benash
___________________________________
One of your best writings/insights IMHO.
" in a world where technology has delivered so much physical perfection we're looking for something a bit flawed, a bit human, that makes us feel alive… We seem to have lost the art of chiaroscuro analysis. Something is either good or bad, period. Shades of gray are not allowed. But it's in the shadows that things are unclear, where life and the mind truly live…"
Great stuff, Thanks!
Shepherd Stevenson
Los Angeles
___________________________________
"in a world where technology has delivered so much physical perfection we're looking for something a bit flawed, a bit human, that makes us feel alive"
I think the last time a new movie did this for me was "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri." Or maybe "Jackass Forever."
C'est la vie.
Brian Howell
___________________________________
"Something is either good or bad, period. Shades of gray are not allowed."
Especially in politics and the news media, where nuance is non-existent.
It's almost like society itself transitioned from analog technology to digital technology, where everything is either 1 or 0.
Craig Anderton
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
References
I'm stunned how much feedback I got about "Killers of the Flower Moon." If I'd written about a record I would have gotten a fraction of the responses. It seems more people are familiar with Scorsese's movie than the music of Taylor Swift.
Yes, Taylor Swift, our national icon, America's girlfriend/sweetheart. I'm sure you're sick of seeing her, but never has an act so big been so small. I keep asking people to sing two Taylor Swift songs. Even name two Taylor Swift songs. And they can't. But they all seem to know and have seen and have an opinion on "Killers of the Flower Moon."
Of course there are fewer movies than records. What do they say at Spotify, 100,000 tracks are uploaded a day? It's impossible to make sense of it. And did you see that Universal is going to lay people off? Growth has slowed, they can't figure out how to grow the business. But the answer is simple, extremely simple, it's the music.
We can all rally around a superstar. The right superstar. One who crosses age groups. But we haven't had that spirit here for a very long time. Someone who writes and plays songs we all can sing along to who impacts the culture. Someone not combing the surface, but excavating deep.
In addition, music is a mature business. Even social media is not mature, although it seems to be getting there, the game of musical chairs has slowed down, there are few players left, and they're all powerful, willing to imitate or purchase any upstarts.
The modern music business is based on two things: the Beatles and MTV. The Beatles were a cultural revolution. MTV showed that you could reach people around the world, and make more money than ever doing it.
But we've seen the trick. Now it's about the music itself.
If there is a breakthrough, something phenomenal, it will spread. But that is not the Weeknd or Drake or the rest of the acts touting their streaming numbers. They are not cultural revolutions.
So we're watching this show "Loudermilk," from Canada, it's now on Netflix. It's a sitcom, and at some points it's a bit formula and cheesy, but at others it rings bells, loudly. Especially with the references.
The main character, Loudermilk himself, is in a record store spouting off and he mentions Saul Zaentz. SAUL ZAENTZ? Fantasy Records? John Fogerty's nemesis?
We all know the story, how Fogerty lost control of his songs and refused to play them live. Well, at least us boomers and Gen-X'ers, who remember hearing "Proud Mary" on AM radio.
And then later in the series, a deadbeat dad goes to see his seventeen year old daughter in her volunteer job at a homeless shelter and Loudermilk talks about phoning home, like E.T., and the girl looks at him blankly. She has no idea what he's talking about.
That's what I love most about "Loudermilk," the references, they bind us. But even SNL has to play broad these days, otherwise no one knows what they're talking about.
I can't say we all saw the same movies, listened to the same records, watched the same TV programs, but there was enough cross-pollination that a great percentage of the populace was aware of a great number of things. Not only could you make references, have inside jokes, but you could have a deep discussion about these topics too.
No longer. We're all into different things, commonality is out the window. Look at politics, where we can't even agree on the facts!
Something has been lost. And I don't want to be like the wankers lamenting the past, we're never going back, but where are we going in the future?
We're looking for commonality, shared experiences.
Used to be there was an entire business based on reacting to the mainstream, by hip, alienated outsiders. Now there is no mainstream, and there's nothing to rebel against. You might brag that you know so much about one vertical, but then someone comes along and proves how little you know about something else.
It's a full time job keeping up on new music. And if you think the young 'uns are better at it, comprehensive, you are totally wrong. They are just influenced by their friend groups. Sure, there are all these acts selling out stadiums, but they're reaching a fraction of the number of people who did this in the past.
Meanwhile, the usual suspects continue to drift somnambulantly into the future. Instead of signing TikTok stars, record labels could sign and develop artists from scratch, but that's too heavy a lift.
And then there's Taylor Tomlinson, who has come off the road for a late night talk show. Looks good on paper, it's a joke in truth. There is no appointment television amongst her peers, her audience. They want a visceral live experience, they don't want to tune in late at night for some talkfest. If anything good happens they can catch it later on YouTube. Assuming they've got the time, that they care, and they don't.
Yes, TV no longer reaches the numbers it used to. If your goal is to host a TV talk show the twentieth century is calling, that's the last time it mattered.
But Taylor and her agents are too entranced by the money to make the correct career decision. James Corden punted. Sure, he was on TV, but it was hurting his overall career, he wanted to do so much more.
So artist development, career development? That is not mature. It's a wide open field wherein you make it up yourself. And too many lament it's not the way it used to be, but once again, we're never going back.
So, instead of playing to the last row, play to the front row. With your own culture, your own inside jokes, your own references. And if you're willing to play for the long haul, and you're innovative, different, you might impact the culture, you might engender some mass references.
The audience is hungry for this, the audience wants to be involved, wants to know others are on the same page. Everybody does not want to go on their own hejira into the internet wilderness.
It comes first and foremost from the talent. You've got to go back to the garden. And the garden in art is always the same, inspiration and innovation. We're looking for breakthroughs, that speak to us and unite us.
Sure, K-pop is a thing. Only for those paying attention. The rest of us don't care and never will.
There's money in the niches, but we're looking for more. Something we all want to pay attention to, something we can all believe in.
But that challenges societal norms. Makes fun of the mainstream. Points out truth. And too many are sold out to the machine to do this anymore.
I want to feel connected, and so do you. That's what we're looking for, and that's what too few provide.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Yes, Taylor Swift, our national icon, America's girlfriend/sweetheart. I'm sure you're sick of seeing her, but never has an act so big been so small. I keep asking people to sing two Taylor Swift songs. Even name two Taylor Swift songs. And they can't. But they all seem to know and have seen and have an opinion on "Killers of the Flower Moon."
Of course there are fewer movies than records. What do they say at Spotify, 100,000 tracks are uploaded a day? It's impossible to make sense of it. And did you see that Universal is going to lay people off? Growth has slowed, they can't figure out how to grow the business. But the answer is simple, extremely simple, it's the music.
We can all rally around a superstar. The right superstar. One who crosses age groups. But we haven't had that spirit here for a very long time. Someone who writes and plays songs we all can sing along to who impacts the culture. Someone not combing the surface, but excavating deep.
In addition, music is a mature business. Even social media is not mature, although it seems to be getting there, the game of musical chairs has slowed down, there are few players left, and they're all powerful, willing to imitate or purchase any upstarts.
The modern music business is based on two things: the Beatles and MTV. The Beatles were a cultural revolution. MTV showed that you could reach people around the world, and make more money than ever doing it.
But we've seen the trick. Now it's about the music itself.
If there is a breakthrough, something phenomenal, it will spread. But that is not the Weeknd or Drake or the rest of the acts touting their streaming numbers. They are not cultural revolutions.
So we're watching this show "Loudermilk," from Canada, it's now on Netflix. It's a sitcom, and at some points it's a bit formula and cheesy, but at others it rings bells, loudly. Especially with the references.
The main character, Loudermilk himself, is in a record store spouting off and he mentions Saul Zaentz. SAUL ZAENTZ? Fantasy Records? John Fogerty's nemesis?
We all know the story, how Fogerty lost control of his songs and refused to play them live. Well, at least us boomers and Gen-X'ers, who remember hearing "Proud Mary" on AM radio.
And then later in the series, a deadbeat dad goes to see his seventeen year old daughter in her volunteer job at a homeless shelter and Loudermilk talks about phoning home, like E.T., and the girl looks at him blankly. She has no idea what he's talking about.
That's what I love most about "Loudermilk," the references, they bind us. But even SNL has to play broad these days, otherwise no one knows what they're talking about.
I can't say we all saw the same movies, listened to the same records, watched the same TV programs, but there was enough cross-pollination that a great percentage of the populace was aware of a great number of things. Not only could you make references, have inside jokes, but you could have a deep discussion about these topics too.
No longer. We're all into different things, commonality is out the window. Look at politics, where we can't even agree on the facts!
Something has been lost. And I don't want to be like the wankers lamenting the past, we're never going back, but where are we going in the future?
We're looking for commonality, shared experiences.
Used to be there was an entire business based on reacting to the mainstream, by hip, alienated outsiders. Now there is no mainstream, and there's nothing to rebel against. You might brag that you know so much about one vertical, but then someone comes along and proves how little you know about something else.
It's a full time job keeping up on new music. And if you think the young 'uns are better at it, comprehensive, you are totally wrong. They are just influenced by their friend groups. Sure, there are all these acts selling out stadiums, but they're reaching a fraction of the number of people who did this in the past.
Meanwhile, the usual suspects continue to drift somnambulantly into the future. Instead of signing TikTok stars, record labels could sign and develop artists from scratch, but that's too heavy a lift.
And then there's Taylor Tomlinson, who has come off the road for a late night talk show. Looks good on paper, it's a joke in truth. There is no appointment television amongst her peers, her audience. They want a visceral live experience, they don't want to tune in late at night for some talkfest. If anything good happens they can catch it later on YouTube. Assuming they've got the time, that they care, and they don't.
Yes, TV no longer reaches the numbers it used to. If your goal is to host a TV talk show the twentieth century is calling, that's the last time it mattered.
But Taylor and her agents are too entranced by the money to make the correct career decision. James Corden punted. Sure, he was on TV, but it was hurting his overall career, he wanted to do so much more.
So artist development, career development? That is not mature. It's a wide open field wherein you make it up yourself. And too many lament it's not the way it used to be, but once again, we're never going back.
So, instead of playing to the last row, play to the front row. With your own culture, your own inside jokes, your own references. And if you're willing to play for the long haul, and you're innovative, different, you might impact the culture, you might engender some mass references.
The audience is hungry for this, the audience wants to be involved, wants to know others are on the same page. Everybody does not want to go on their own hejira into the internet wilderness.
It comes first and foremost from the talent. You've got to go back to the garden. And the garden in art is always the same, inspiration and innovation. We're looking for breakthroughs, that speak to us and unite us.
Sure, K-pop is a thing. Only for those paying attention. The rest of us don't care and never will.
There's money in the niches, but we're looking for more. Something we all want to pay attention to, something we can all believe in.
But that challenges societal norms. Makes fun of the mainstream. Points out truth. And too many are sold out to the machine to do this anymore.
I want to feel connected, and so do you. That's what we're looking for, and that's what too few provide.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Monday 15 January 2024
Killers Of The Flower Moon
I'm glad I didn't see this in a theatre. Because after two hours I would have been squirming, wondering if I could make it to the end without hightailing it for the bathroom.
Although I did sit through the entire thing at home. Knowing the loo was just a few steps away, that I could bolt when the pressure became overwhelming. But it didn't. Making me wonder whether it's psychological at the cineplex, at least some of the time.
Not that I think I missed a whole hell of a lot watching on the flat screen. Because with today's technology and size it replicates the theatre experience. Once again, I'm watching on a 65" LG OLED, the industry standard, and I highly recommend it, makes all the difference. The film would have been inferior on a smaller screen with less clear definition and color. As for the old days, when the tube TV ratio was different and you lost part of the image...then you had to go to the theatre, the experience at home was vastly inferior. But no longer.
I do not think "Raging Bull" was the best movie of the eighties. As talented as Scorsese is, he's got a problem with arc. A traditional movie builds to the climax whereas too often Marty's films are flat. They're more like reading a book. Or a miniseries.
Which is what "Killers of the Flower Moon" should have been. I know complete series that are shorter than its three hour and twenty six minute length. Why this had to be a movie...
Oh, that's right. Movies are an art form, of the highest visual standard, and when it comes to television...that's second-rate.
These are the same people who can't stop hating on technology. Things change and they can't accept them. I blame the boomers, who think exterior makes interior. You can use Mounjaro, dress in skinny jeans, own an iPhone 15 and still be out of the loop. It's nearly impossible to keep up with the changing society. And never forget, the mainstream media completely missed the Trump revolution of 2016, even though it was hiding in plain sight. Making one wonder why we should trust these outlets. The same ones lauding the performance of Lily Gladstone.
Which barely exists. This is not Gary Oldman in "Slow Horses." Most of the time Gladstone is blank. Oftentimes you're not exactly sure what is going on inside that noggin, if it's anything at all. But she's the star of a highly respected movie so of course she deserves awards.
As for Leo... Am I the only one who doesn't get DiCaprio? Even though he's pushing fifty, it's hard for me to see him as an adult. It's not that he's a bad actor, but he's far from transcendent. Like Robert De Niro.
De Niro is the star of "Killers of the Flower Moon." He delivers an understated performance that rings wholly true. Makes me sad that he's eighty, on the downside of his life, that we won't get more years of him in shows. De Niro earns his accolades. As for his role as King Bill Hale in this movie... I don't know if he shrunk or he's just made to appear small yet powerful. Hale is a titan of society. You know, the type who gladhands and smiles and always says the right thing but in reality is solely out for himself. Too many of our esteemed executives are the same way. Candy-coated on the outside, pure evil on the inside. And it's so great to watch De Niro try to will the situation to his benefit. The way he tries to convince DiCaprio and others to do what is good for him by saying it's good for them.
As for the cinematography... Rich and brilliant. Only Apple would give Scorsese all this money to do it his way, and a lot of it ends up on screen.
And while you're watching, you're wondering how much of this is real, truth. I got the book from the library, but I couldn't penetrate it. Then again, I very much enjoyed "The Wager," David Grann's new book, then again, like a Scorsese movie, it too is flat. The facts are amazing, the story well told, but it all peters out at the end, even the escape.
Anyway, you watch a movie like this and you wonder if the characters are fake or real, plot devices or based on people. Not that it hurts the enjoyment of the picture, it just made me wonder how big a story this was. This is an epic movie, which will probably win the Oscar for Best Picture, but even the way it's presented makes the story seem trivial, or at least secondary, this is not the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, excavated from the past and now part of our national fabric. This story of Native Americans and oil is just not presented that way.
So if you've got Apple TV+ I highly recommend watching "Killers of the Flower Moon." It's flawless in execution. It delivers a story you're unaware of, unless you read the book, and you're edified to your benefit. And you have the good guys and bad guys of the west. But that wallop, that feeling of fullness yet emptiness at the end of a tour-de-force masterpiece, like "The Godfather," how it ended and you stood in the theatre staring at the blank screen...this is not that.
All those great movies that take you on a ride, have you leaving your world behind to inhabit a new one, such that when you're placed back in reality you're stunned..."Killers of the Flower Moon" is not that.
"Killers of the Flower Moon" is a combination history lesson, travelogue and old school white hat/black hat western.
I very much enjoyed watching it. I guess I just want to counteract the hosannas. Especially if you haven't seen it. It's an achievement, but that's very different from the zeitgeist movie experience, that has you riveted, on the end of your seat.
But at least it got made. You get the story. But somehow, when it's all done, you don't feel the story, you can let it go. Because Scorsese was so busy getting the details right that the essence of moviemaking, the underlying story arc, the build and then the release, were secondary.
A great movie...
Well, I think I already described it. You're wowed. You'll be wowed by the visuals of "Killers of the Flower Moon," but there's no way you'll turn to a friend and insist they see it. It's not quite a chore. But at times it's a bit too paint-by-numbers. I can name numerous television series that are superior. But that's because TV is all about story, whereas too often today's movies are about image.
Watch it, let me know what you think.
Then again, the days of movie criticism are passé. No longer does the public analyze movies, poring over details, what they mean, what the director was trying to achieve. Actually, today's vaunted film directors tend to be like today's record producers. Both engineers as opposed to amorphous free spirits who try to capture the aforementioned zeitgeist.
Rick Rubin can't twirl the dials, but he can get the artist in the head of recording transcendent music. T-Bone Burnett too. You can know how to work Pro Tools, you can get a pristine sound, but music is about more than sound.
And movies are about more than image.
Scorsese sits somewhere in between the precision cinematographer directors of today and the auteurs of the past.
But we forget the popcorn movies.
"The Sopranos" is superior to any film released in the twenty first century. And no one ever talks about the images, they talk about the story, the relationships, which reflect life.
There's life in "Killers of the Flower Moon," but it's subservient to image, and that's unfortunate.
Not that I want to dismiss the film. It's far superior to the rest of the pack. But I wish it was just a little bit more. That it captured a je ne sais quoi that's a feature of every film classic. You can watch "Killers of the Flower Moon" but it rarely touches your heart. It's more of a spectacle. And in a world where technology has delivered so much physical perfection we're looking for something a bit flawed, a bit human, that makes us feel alive. That's what resonates. The click track might make it perfect, but it also might excise the humanity of the song, and art needs to be human. I can see beneath the surface of Bill Hale in this movie, but the rest of the characters end up being more two-dimensional than three, which means we just can't get inside them enough to truly understand them, and resonate with them, or judge them.
We seem to have lost the art of chiaroscuro analysis. Something is either good or bad, period. Shades of gray are not allowed. But it's in the shadows that things are unclear, where life and the mind truly live. Despite the gray in so many images in "Killers of the Flower Moon," I wish we could have seen more of this gradation in the characters.
"Killers of the Flower Moon" is very good. But what we're really looking for his greatness. And if we can't hold our artists' feet to the fire, if all we can do is pledge fealty to them, it's not only their loss, but ours.
But that's the society we now live in.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Although I did sit through the entire thing at home. Knowing the loo was just a few steps away, that I could bolt when the pressure became overwhelming. But it didn't. Making me wonder whether it's psychological at the cineplex, at least some of the time.
Not that I think I missed a whole hell of a lot watching on the flat screen. Because with today's technology and size it replicates the theatre experience. Once again, I'm watching on a 65" LG OLED, the industry standard, and I highly recommend it, makes all the difference. The film would have been inferior on a smaller screen with less clear definition and color. As for the old days, when the tube TV ratio was different and you lost part of the image...then you had to go to the theatre, the experience at home was vastly inferior. But no longer.
I do not think "Raging Bull" was the best movie of the eighties. As talented as Scorsese is, he's got a problem with arc. A traditional movie builds to the climax whereas too often Marty's films are flat. They're more like reading a book. Or a miniseries.
Which is what "Killers of the Flower Moon" should have been. I know complete series that are shorter than its three hour and twenty six minute length. Why this had to be a movie...
Oh, that's right. Movies are an art form, of the highest visual standard, and when it comes to television...that's second-rate.
These are the same people who can't stop hating on technology. Things change and they can't accept them. I blame the boomers, who think exterior makes interior. You can use Mounjaro, dress in skinny jeans, own an iPhone 15 and still be out of the loop. It's nearly impossible to keep up with the changing society. And never forget, the mainstream media completely missed the Trump revolution of 2016, even though it was hiding in plain sight. Making one wonder why we should trust these outlets. The same ones lauding the performance of Lily Gladstone.
Which barely exists. This is not Gary Oldman in "Slow Horses." Most of the time Gladstone is blank. Oftentimes you're not exactly sure what is going on inside that noggin, if it's anything at all. But she's the star of a highly respected movie so of course she deserves awards.
As for Leo... Am I the only one who doesn't get DiCaprio? Even though he's pushing fifty, it's hard for me to see him as an adult. It's not that he's a bad actor, but he's far from transcendent. Like Robert De Niro.
De Niro is the star of "Killers of the Flower Moon." He delivers an understated performance that rings wholly true. Makes me sad that he's eighty, on the downside of his life, that we won't get more years of him in shows. De Niro earns his accolades. As for his role as King Bill Hale in this movie... I don't know if he shrunk or he's just made to appear small yet powerful. Hale is a titan of society. You know, the type who gladhands and smiles and always says the right thing but in reality is solely out for himself. Too many of our esteemed executives are the same way. Candy-coated on the outside, pure evil on the inside. And it's so great to watch De Niro try to will the situation to his benefit. The way he tries to convince DiCaprio and others to do what is good for him by saying it's good for them.
As for the cinematography... Rich and brilliant. Only Apple would give Scorsese all this money to do it his way, and a lot of it ends up on screen.
And while you're watching, you're wondering how much of this is real, truth. I got the book from the library, but I couldn't penetrate it. Then again, I very much enjoyed "The Wager," David Grann's new book, then again, like a Scorsese movie, it too is flat. The facts are amazing, the story well told, but it all peters out at the end, even the escape.
Anyway, you watch a movie like this and you wonder if the characters are fake or real, plot devices or based on people. Not that it hurts the enjoyment of the picture, it just made me wonder how big a story this was. This is an epic movie, which will probably win the Oscar for Best Picture, but even the way it's presented makes the story seem trivial, or at least secondary, this is not the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, excavated from the past and now part of our national fabric. This story of Native Americans and oil is just not presented that way.
So if you've got Apple TV+ I highly recommend watching "Killers of the Flower Moon." It's flawless in execution. It delivers a story you're unaware of, unless you read the book, and you're edified to your benefit. And you have the good guys and bad guys of the west. But that wallop, that feeling of fullness yet emptiness at the end of a tour-de-force masterpiece, like "The Godfather," how it ended and you stood in the theatre staring at the blank screen...this is not that.
All those great movies that take you on a ride, have you leaving your world behind to inhabit a new one, such that when you're placed back in reality you're stunned..."Killers of the Flower Moon" is not that.
"Killers of the Flower Moon" is a combination history lesson, travelogue and old school white hat/black hat western.
I very much enjoyed watching it. I guess I just want to counteract the hosannas. Especially if you haven't seen it. It's an achievement, but that's very different from the zeitgeist movie experience, that has you riveted, on the end of your seat.
But at least it got made. You get the story. But somehow, when it's all done, you don't feel the story, you can let it go. Because Scorsese was so busy getting the details right that the essence of moviemaking, the underlying story arc, the build and then the release, were secondary.
A great movie...
Well, I think I already described it. You're wowed. You'll be wowed by the visuals of "Killers of the Flower Moon," but there's no way you'll turn to a friend and insist they see it. It's not quite a chore. But at times it's a bit too paint-by-numbers. I can name numerous television series that are superior. But that's because TV is all about story, whereas too often today's movies are about image.
Watch it, let me know what you think.
Then again, the days of movie criticism are passé. No longer does the public analyze movies, poring over details, what they mean, what the director was trying to achieve. Actually, today's vaunted film directors tend to be like today's record producers. Both engineers as opposed to amorphous free spirits who try to capture the aforementioned zeitgeist.
Rick Rubin can't twirl the dials, but he can get the artist in the head of recording transcendent music. T-Bone Burnett too. You can know how to work Pro Tools, you can get a pristine sound, but music is about more than sound.
And movies are about more than image.
Scorsese sits somewhere in between the precision cinematographer directors of today and the auteurs of the past.
But we forget the popcorn movies.
"The Sopranos" is superior to any film released in the twenty first century. And no one ever talks about the images, they talk about the story, the relationships, which reflect life.
There's life in "Killers of the Flower Moon," but it's subservient to image, and that's unfortunate.
Not that I want to dismiss the film. It's far superior to the rest of the pack. But I wish it was just a little bit more. That it captured a je ne sais quoi that's a feature of every film classic. You can watch "Killers of the Flower Moon" but it rarely touches your heart. It's more of a spectacle. And in a world where technology has delivered so much physical perfection we're looking for something a bit flawed, a bit human, that makes us feel alive. That's what resonates. The click track might make it perfect, but it also might excise the humanity of the song, and art needs to be human. I can see beneath the surface of Bill Hale in this movie, but the rest of the characters end up being more two-dimensional than three, which means we just can't get inside them enough to truly understand them, and resonate with them, or judge them.
We seem to have lost the art of chiaroscuro analysis. Something is either good or bad, period. Shades of gray are not allowed. But it's in the shadows that things are unclear, where life and the mind truly live. Despite the gray in so many images in "Killers of the Flower Moon," I wish we could have seen more of this gradation in the characters.
"Killers of the Flower Moon" is very good. But what we're really looking for his greatness. And if we can't hold our artists' feet to the fire, if all we can do is pledge fealty to them, it's not only their loss, but ours.
But that's the society we now live in.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Sunday 14 January 2024
Buried
Netflix - "Buried: The 1982 Alpine Meadows Avalanche": https://rb.gy/kn6se3
1
By now you're probably aware of the tragedy at Palisades Tahoe, the in-bounds avalanche that took a life.
Now the odds of dying in an avalanche are miniscule. Assuming you pay attention to the rules, assuming you have respect for the outdoors, assuming you're in the outdoors with an abundance of snow to begin with.
Now I've experienced the snow move three times. Only one time was it frightening to the point where I realized my life was in danger. But instinct kicks in, you get the hell out of there, at least I did, after the other five people immediately abandoned me. No friends on a powder day? Believe me, you've got no friends in an avalanche.
All three of these events happened in-bounds. Two at Mammoth Mountain, in California. Now in the third case, at Snowbird, they immediately closed that side of the mountain, and then the whole damn ski area, like they did today. Yes, both Alta and Snowbird, in Little Cottonwood Canyon, Utah, are closed today. Because it doesn't stop snowing and it doesn't stop sliding and it's damn dangerous.
Not that you can convince people of this. Evidence is this movie. About the slide at Alpine Meadows in 1982.
Now the odds of having an avalanche, a life-threatening avalanche, in the northeast are miniscule. Yes, it can happen on Mt. Washington. But there are no lifts there. In other words, you have to put yourself in danger.
And people are putting themselves in danger all over the west. It's the new new thing. To go out of bounds in search of untracked powder.
Which doesn't float my boat. Not only going out of bounds, but the powder itself.
In truth, there's very little light powder, of the kind you see in photographs and movies. You know, the kind where you can blast through the lighter than air snow like it's not even there. It doesn't even happen all the time in the aforementioned Little Cottonwood Canyon, which has the lightest snow in the U.S. Conditions have to be exactly right. And when they are, it's astounding, you can literally blow the snow off your car, but like I said, it's rare.
And when you're in this kind of powder it's completely different from the "powder" of the east coast. Of even the powder in Colorado. The new snow in the east is heavy. To ski it you must lean back, whereas when it's perfect in Little Cottonwood Canyon you ski exactly centered. As for Colorado... I've never seen it as light as I have in Little Cottonwood Canyon, never.
As for Little Cottonwood Canyon, don't confuse this with Park City and Deer Valley. The latter get much less snow and it's heavier, because the altitude is lower and they're not in a box canyon.
All this to say that I believe powder is overrated.
Have I gotten up at the crack of dawn for untracked runs?
Yes. It's not a good experience. There's a line before the lift opens. And when you get off you fight for the powder. And if you know what you're doing you can get one completely untracked run, and then a couple of cut-up runs, and then...you ski the crud (cut-up powder) until it disappears.
Now the word is out. In the seventies in Little Cottonwood Canyon it would take nearly a day for the powder to get skied out. Well, maybe not that long, but hours. You wouldn't continue to get completely untracked runs, but you could find a facsimile thereof. Today? It's an hour.
As for Vail, my home mountain... Vail is so vast that it takes more than an hour, but after not much longer than that you won't find any untracked runs. Unless you go in the trees. But you can ski good crud all day, maybe even the next day.
Which is why I no longer get up to get first tracks on powder days.
It's not that I hate powder, I just ski it on storm days, which most people hate. As for the hard core, the very hard core is on my team, but the rest need to go out after a big dump for some kind of bragging rights, and believe me, there's plenty of bragging in skiing.
Having said that, there are plenty of treed areas at Vail. But the vaunted Back Bowls are in most cases sans trees, which is why I avoid them on storm days, you can't see a f*cking thing. And I've skied so much I have good judgment, as in this is not how I want to die, I play the odds. And if you can't see where you're going, the odds of getting into trouble are very high.
But there's still that lure of untracked snow. Which is how those skiers got in trouble in Palisades Tahoe this past week.
2
Not that I want to blame these skiers. I blame the ski area.
Now that's not what you've been reading. Everybody has been saying the ski patrol did all it could do. But it's more complicated than that.
When I lived in Utah, the ski patrol and its edicts were inviolate. Cross the line, and in most cases this was a rope, and not only would they pull your ticket, they'd pull your season pass. So you'd be skiing the wide open Regulator Johnson in crud and just to your left, on the other side of the rope, it would be pristine, untouched.
But you knew the rules. And no one broke them. Occasionally a tourist, but they'd be yanked immediately and word would spread.
But something happened over the past couple of decades. Backcountry skiing became a thing. Furthermore, under the law, so much of the ski areas being on Forest Service land, you couldn't prevent people from doing this.
Now get this straight... In most cases you have to hike to this out of bounds stuff. Sometimes from the very bottom up. Which is why despite all the hype, not that many people do it. And it's very dangerous, and people think they're inviolate, that they'll survive no matter what. But statistics say otherwise. They're dropping like flies. Because snow science is not an exact science, and so many of these bozos think they know more than the scientists anyway. And they can't forgo that wide expanse of untracked snow.
So... This is not how I want to go. I don't ski out of bounds. I just don't want to take the risk. And what's another untracked powder run anyway? I've had enough. But these same people who cross the lines are not silent about it, they like to brag, about where they've been and what they've done, telling you that not only was their ski experience better than yours, but they themselves are better than you!
And let's not forget peer pressure. If you're going with a group of guys outside the ski area boundary, it's very hard to blow the whistle, to say no-go, you're seen as a party pooper, a wimp. Which is why I avoid these circumstances to begin with. Worst are the weekend warriors, who despite riding a desk all week think they can ski like experts over the weekend or during a holiday. This would be like asking Mikaela Shiffrin to win World Cups only skiing two days a week. It doesn't work that way. You need to ski every day to get a fine feel for your skis, for your edges, for the snow, in order to be able to compensate, adjust when you get in trouble. Which is also the reason you should be wary of skiing in-bounds with weekend warriors. They always want to ski the hardest slopes the second or third run. Their judgment is off, or nonexistent.
So, if you go out of bounds, be with others, wear a transceiver/avalanche beacon and pay attention to the reports, and when they say avalanche danger is high stay out. And beware when it's lower than that. You're alive until you're dead, remember that.
3
So the truth is it's been a lousy ski season so far. Well, at least until the last ten days or so. As in there hasn't been much snow. Which hasn't kept me off the slopes, I skied 28 out of 29 days last month, and the day off was for travel. And do you see that, how I was bragging right there? Yup. But I'm also saying that you've got to do it every day for that edge. Because you can get in trouble very easily on the mountain. And you want to be alert and experienced and in shape when you do.
And be exercising good judgment.
Like the day they opened the Back Bowls in Vail in December. I was on the hill, it happened around noon, but I didn't go. Because I know. That until the snow is packed down you don't know what you'll hit underneath. I've had the bad experience, of hitting a gully and getting thrown forward out of my stopped-dead skis. I learned my lesson. I don't want to sacrifice my entire season for one rope drop, for one untracked run.
But then it didn't snow again. And Vail kept the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin open when they were nearly unskiable. The heavily tracked slopes were rocky, and that which was not heavily tracked was frozen solid. Only amateurs went back there.
But then it snowed.
So what you've got at these ski areas is pent-up demand. From the tourists who are there only briefly, from the locals champing at the bit. So ski areas are eager to drop the rope, open more territory.
And in truth, so much of Vail is flat. There's very limited avalanche territory. But at Palisades Tahoe? That's why people go there, for the challenge. And the biggest challenge, other than the cliffs you have to hike to at the very top of the ski area, is on KT22, named such because one of the founders had to kick turn twenty two times to get down. It's just that steep.
Which yields bragging rights.
So, Palisades Tahoe was caught in a conundrum. Do they play it safe or give the people what they want, i.e. do they open up the KT22 lift and the untracked slopes beneath it.
Now I wasn't there. I'm not a member of the ski patrol. Snow science is that, a science. However, this never happens in Little Cottonwood Canyon. People don't die in-bounds there. Now the snow is very different, in Tahoe it's heavy, with a high water content. But still...
I'm thinking there's some bad judgment here. That the patrol felt pressure, whether external or internal, to open KT22.
4
That's the deal you make. You ski in-bounds and you're safe. They don't guarantee it, but it's evident nonetheless. Want to put your life at risk? Go out of bounds. But if you're playing by the rules, the rules will save you, right?
Well, now I'm going to contradict myself. I just did some research, to find out if there'd ever been a death in an in-bounds avalanche in Little Cottonwood Canyon. And it turns out there was one as recently as 2008. And a skier even got caught in a slide on Lover's Leap in Vail (however, they lived): https://rb.gy/283ifv
The previous in-bounds avalanche death was all the way back in 1977: https://rb.gy/yff9t7
However, the devil is in the details:
"Sunday was the first day Snowbird opened that part of the resort -- the easternmost area -- and crews had performed avalanche control that morning, Fields said."
Hmm... So it seems to happen everywhere. Early in the season. So maybe in both these cases, at Palisades Tahoe and Snowbird, they felt pressure to open terrain before it was ready.
Or maybe it's just the luck of the draw.
Or maybe you don't want to be a guinea pig. Like I refused to be in the Back Bowls in Vail last month. Maybe there's an inherent danger at the beginning of the season, and skier beware, but that's not the impression one gets from the ski patrol, from the ski area itself.
5
So my friend Joe, a refugee from the music business, now lives in Tahoe. And after communicating about the avalanche last week he recommended I watch a documentary about the 1982 avalanche at Alpine Meadows, just over the hill from where last week's avalanche took place. Yes, it used to be two different ski areas, Squaw Valley and Alpine Meadows, now they're connected via ownership and a gondola. The Squaw side gets all the press, but a lot of the locals prefer the less-crowded Alpine.
So we pulled up "Buried" and couldn't turn it off.
And you won't be able to either.
First you'll get the renegade ski culture of the era. Something I'm very familiar with. It's hard to make a living, which is why most people move on, including me, but for a while there you're living the life, long before the health problems that accost you as you get older, back in an era where you could at least pay the bills on minimum wage.
And in truth, avalanche science has progressed since 1982. Now they don't fire howitzers, they have Gazex systems planted at the top of the avalanche zones, that essentially trigger slides via compressed gases. Remotely.
Not that avalanche danger has been completely eradicated.
So what have we learned? A confluence of decisions led to the loss of life last week. Will there be adjustments in the process? I believe there will be. Then again, guests who fly across the country, across the world, pressure ski areas to open terrain, and if you don't, your competitor will.
But if you want to familiarize yourself with the game, what is involved, I highly recommend this documentary, it covers all the exigencies, and the decisions, and how events like this can haunt you forever.
As for me... Life is all about risks. And sometimes you get caught on the wrong side of the line. But if you never get up close and personal to the line, if you never cross it, you don't know where it is.
Then again, not every decision is one of life or death.
Avalanches compact snow into the equivalent of concrete. Good luck if you get buried. It happens, but do your best to improve your odds of avoiding this situation to begin with.
I certainly am.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
1
By now you're probably aware of the tragedy at Palisades Tahoe, the in-bounds avalanche that took a life.
Now the odds of dying in an avalanche are miniscule. Assuming you pay attention to the rules, assuming you have respect for the outdoors, assuming you're in the outdoors with an abundance of snow to begin with.
Now I've experienced the snow move three times. Only one time was it frightening to the point where I realized my life was in danger. But instinct kicks in, you get the hell out of there, at least I did, after the other five people immediately abandoned me. No friends on a powder day? Believe me, you've got no friends in an avalanche.
All three of these events happened in-bounds. Two at Mammoth Mountain, in California. Now in the third case, at Snowbird, they immediately closed that side of the mountain, and then the whole damn ski area, like they did today. Yes, both Alta and Snowbird, in Little Cottonwood Canyon, Utah, are closed today. Because it doesn't stop snowing and it doesn't stop sliding and it's damn dangerous.
Not that you can convince people of this. Evidence is this movie. About the slide at Alpine Meadows in 1982.
Now the odds of having an avalanche, a life-threatening avalanche, in the northeast are miniscule. Yes, it can happen on Mt. Washington. But there are no lifts there. In other words, you have to put yourself in danger.
And people are putting themselves in danger all over the west. It's the new new thing. To go out of bounds in search of untracked powder.
Which doesn't float my boat. Not only going out of bounds, but the powder itself.
In truth, there's very little light powder, of the kind you see in photographs and movies. You know, the kind where you can blast through the lighter than air snow like it's not even there. It doesn't even happen all the time in the aforementioned Little Cottonwood Canyon, which has the lightest snow in the U.S. Conditions have to be exactly right. And when they are, it's astounding, you can literally blow the snow off your car, but like I said, it's rare.
And when you're in this kind of powder it's completely different from the "powder" of the east coast. Of even the powder in Colorado. The new snow in the east is heavy. To ski it you must lean back, whereas when it's perfect in Little Cottonwood Canyon you ski exactly centered. As for Colorado... I've never seen it as light as I have in Little Cottonwood Canyon, never.
As for Little Cottonwood Canyon, don't confuse this with Park City and Deer Valley. The latter get much less snow and it's heavier, because the altitude is lower and they're not in a box canyon.
All this to say that I believe powder is overrated.
Have I gotten up at the crack of dawn for untracked runs?
Yes. It's not a good experience. There's a line before the lift opens. And when you get off you fight for the powder. And if you know what you're doing you can get one completely untracked run, and then a couple of cut-up runs, and then...you ski the crud (cut-up powder) until it disappears.
Now the word is out. In the seventies in Little Cottonwood Canyon it would take nearly a day for the powder to get skied out. Well, maybe not that long, but hours. You wouldn't continue to get completely untracked runs, but you could find a facsimile thereof. Today? It's an hour.
As for Vail, my home mountain... Vail is so vast that it takes more than an hour, but after not much longer than that you won't find any untracked runs. Unless you go in the trees. But you can ski good crud all day, maybe even the next day.
Which is why I no longer get up to get first tracks on powder days.
It's not that I hate powder, I just ski it on storm days, which most people hate. As for the hard core, the very hard core is on my team, but the rest need to go out after a big dump for some kind of bragging rights, and believe me, there's plenty of bragging in skiing.
Having said that, there are plenty of treed areas at Vail. But the vaunted Back Bowls are in most cases sans trees, which is why I avoid them on storm days, you can't see a f*cking thing. And I've skied so much I have good judgment, as in this is not how I want to die, I play the odds. And if you can't see where you're going, the odds of getting into trouble are very high.
But there's still that lure of untracked snow. Which is how those skiers got in trouble in Palisades Tahoe this past week.
2
Not that I want to blame these skiers. I blame the ski area.
Now that's not what you've been reading. Everybody has been saying the ski patrol did all it could do. But it's more complicated than that.
When I lived in Utah, the ski patrol and its edicts were inviolate. Cross the line, and in most cases this was a rope, and not only would they pull your ticket, they'd pull your season pass. So you'd be skiing the wide open Regulator Johnson in crud and just to your left, on the other side of the rope, it would be pristine, untouched.
But you knew the rules. And no one broke them. Occasionally a tourist, but they'd be yanked immediately and word would spread.
But something happened over the past couple of decades. Backcountry skiing became a thing. Furthermore, under the law, so much of the ski areas being on Forest Service land, you couldn't prevent people from doing this.
Now get this straight... In most cases you have to hike to this out of bounds stuff. Sometimes from the very bottom up. Which is why despite all the hype, not that many people do it. And it's very dangerous, and people think they're inviolate, that they'll survive no matter what. But statistics say otherwise. They're dropping like flies. Because snow science is not an exact science, and so many of these bozos think they know more than the scientists anyway. And they can't forgo that wide expanse of untracked snow.
So... This is not how I want to go. I don't ski out of bounds. I just don't want to take the risk. And what's another untracked powder run anyway? I've had enough. But these same people who cross the lines are not silent about it, they like to brag, about where they've been and what they've done, telling you that not only was their ski experience better than yours, but they themselves are better than you!
And let's not forget peer pressure. If you're going with a group of guys outside the ski area boundary, it's very hard to blow the whistle, to say no-go, you're seen as a party pooper, a wimp. Which is why I avoid these circumstances to begin with. Worst are the weekend warriors, who despite riding a desk all week think they can ski like experts over the weekend or during a holiday. This would be like asking Mikaela Shiffrin to win World Cups only skiing two days a week. It doesn't work that way. You need to ski every day to get a fine feel for your skis, for your edges, for the snow, in order to be able to compensate, adjust when you get in trouble. Which is also the reason you should be wary of skiing in-bounds with weekend warriors. They always want to ski the hardest slopes the second or third run. Their judgment is off, or nonexistent.
So, if you go out of bounds, be with others, wear a transceiver/avalanche beacon and pay attention to the reports, and when they say avalanche danger is high stay out. And beware when it's lower than that. You're alive until you're dead, remember that.
3
So the truth is it's been a lousy ski season so far. Well, at least until the last ten days or so. As in there hasn't been much snow. Which hasn't kept me off the slopes, I skied 28 out of 29 days last month, and the day off was for travel. And do you see that, how I was bragging right there? Yup. But I'm also saying that you've got to do it every day for that edge. Because you can get in trouble very easily on the mountain. And you want to be alert and experienced and in shape when you do.
And be exercising good judgment.
Like the day they opened the Back Bowls in Vail in December. I was on the hill, it happened around noon, but I didn't go. Because I know. That until the snow is packed down you don't know what you'll hit underneath. I've had the bad experience, of hitting a gully and getting thrown forward out of my stopped-dead skis. I learned my lesson. I don't want to sacrifice my entire season for one rope drop, for one untracked run.
But then it didn't snow again. And Vail kept the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin open when they were nearly unskiable. The heavily tracked slopes were rocky, and that which was not heavily tracked was frozen solid. Only amateurs went back there.
But then it snowed.
So what you've got at these ski areas is pent-up demand. From the tourists who are there only briefly, from the locals champing at the bit. So ski areas are eager to drop the rope, open more territory.
And in truth, so much of Vail is flat. There's very limited avalanche territory. But at Palisades Tahoe? That's why people go there, for the challenge. And the biggest challenge, other than the cliffs you have to hike to at the very top of the ski area, is on KT22, named such because one of the founders had to kick turn twenty two times to get down. It's just that steep.
Which yields bragging rights.
So, Palisades Tahoe was caught in a conundrum. Do they play it safe or give the people what they want, i.e. do they open up the KT22 lift and the untracked slopes beneath it.
Now I wasn't there. I'm not a member of the ski patrol. Snow science is that, a science. However, this never happens in Little Cottonwood Canyon. People don't die in-bounds there. Now the snow is very different, in Tahoe it's heavy, with a high water content. But still...
I'm thinking there's some bad judgment here. That the patrol felt pressure, whether external or internal, to open KT22.
4
That's the deal you make. You ski in-bounds and you're safe. They don't guarantee it, but it's evident nonetheless. Want to put your life at risk? Go out of bounds. But if you're playing by the rules, the rules will save you, right?
Well, now I'm going to contradict myself. I just did some research, to find out if there'd ever been a death in an in-bounds avalanche in Little Cottonwood Canyon. And it turns out there was one as recently as 2008. And a skier even got caught in a slide on Lover's Leap in Vail (however, they lived): https://rb.gy/283ifv
The previous in-bounds avalanche death was all the way back in 1977: https://rb.gy/yff9t7
However, the devil is in the details:
"Sunday was the first day Snowbird opened that part of the resort -- the easternmost area -- and crews had performed avalanche control that morning, Fields said."
Hmm... So it seems to happen everywhere. Early in the season. So maybe in both these cases, at Palisades Tahoe and Snowbird, they felt pressure to open terrain before it was ready.
Or maybe it's just the luck of the draw.
Or maybe you don't want to be a guinea pig. Like I refused to be in the Back Bowls in Vail last month. Maybe there's an inherent danger at the beginning of the season, and skier beware, but that's not the impression one gets from the ski patrol, from the ski area itself.
5
So my friend Joe, a refugee from the music business, now lives in Tahoe. And after communicating about the avalanche last week he recommended I watch a documentary about the 1982 avalanche at Alpine Meadows, just over the hill from where last week's avalanche took place. Yes, it used to be two different ski areas, Squaw Valley and Alpine Meadows, now they're connected via ownership and a gondola. The Squaw side gets all the press, but a lot of the locals prefer the less-crowded Alpine.
So we pulled up "Buried" and couldn't turn it off.
And you won't be able to either.
First you'll get the renegade ski culture of the era. Something I'm very familiar with. It's hard to make a living, which is why most people move on, including me, but for a while there you're living the life, long before the health problems that accost you as you get older, back in an era where you could at least pay the bills on minimum wage.
And in truth, avalanche science has progressed since 1982. Now they don't fire howitzers, they have Gazex systems planted at the top of the avalanche zones, that essentially trigger slides via compressed gases. Remotely.
Not that avalanche danger has been completely eradicated.
So what have we learned? A confluence of decisions led to the loss of life last week. Will there be adjustments in the process? I believe there will be. Then again, guests who fly across the country, across the world, pressure ski areas to open terrain, and if you don't, your competitor will.
But if you want to familiarize yourself with the game, what is involved, I highly recommend this documentary, it covers all the exigencies, and the decisions, and how events like this can haunt you forever.
As for me... Life is all about risks. And sometimes you get caught on the wrong side of the line. But if you never get up close and personal to the line, if you never cross it, you don't know where it is.
Then again, not every decision is one of life or death.
Avalanches compact snow into the equivalent of concrete. Good luck if you get buried. It happens, but do your best to improve your odds of avoiding this situation to begin with.
I certainly am.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)