Hayes Carll is an award-winning singer-songwriter from Texas. We discuss how he performed virtually during the pandemic, as well as what it's like to be a touring musician singing his truth today and the tension between needing to have a presence online yet still focus on the work. Hayes also describes what it's like to pursue songwriting excellence as opposed to fame. This is the other side of the music industry, someone who has a presence in the landscape yet has to work for a living, who is known but is not famous enough to survive on recording income and sponsorships. Hayes is authentic, you'll enjoy listening to him.
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-the-bob-lefsetz-podcast-30806836/episode/hayes-carll-95217620/
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hayes-carll/id1316200737?i=1000556513509
https://open.spotify.com/episode/1hafTCbwq9hPIWuRRKqYmJ?si=5CaOQCCPQACr0gug64m5IQ
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ff4fb19-54d4-41ae-ae7a-8a6f8d3dafa8/episodes/6c7551cc-1293-41c4-be69-d4dc622763b0/the-bob-lefsetz-podcast-hayes-carll
https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-bob-lefsetz-podcast/episode/hayes-carll-202144435
--
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, 7 April 2022
Leo Sayer Responds
Hey Bob,
You may not know it, but I've long admired your writing.
So it was that I was quite taken aback when a friend of mine in the States mentioned that you'd written a piece entitled 'Living In A Fantasy' - taking inspiration from my 1980 song.
It's a beautifully written article (as always) and I find it so very humbling that my words and creativity have such an effect on people.
When you're creating songs you never think of the effect, just putting down emotions as they come to you, trying to describe to yourself how you feel, to let it all out, air your thoughts. It's a very cathartic exercise, rewarding and satisfying too.
I have had a very long career, which is still going strong even though I'm now I'm in my 74th year.
I'm living these days near Sydney in Australia, still writing songs, making records, still performing gigs and tours with my voice as good as ever - and remarkably I've still got all my hair!
I feel blessed by my life as a songwriter, even more than my success as a singer, and articles like yours make it all worthwhile.
So, thank you!
Leo (Gerard Hugh) Sayer.
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
Subject: Leo Sayer video from Jack Tempchin
Hi Bob
In the year 2000 I had a birthday party every Monday night at "The Joint" on Pico and Sepulveda. I had "special guests" drop in and play with my core band.
Here is one night when Leo Sayer played. He was incredible.
There is backstage footage. Terry Reid, Waddy Wachtel, Rick Rosas, Bernard Fowler and Phil Jones and I were the band.
There was always a cast of characters backstage.
I had it all filmed and recorded and this year they are being posted.
Leo Sayer blew my mind. I had no idea from his records how great a singer he was.
thanks
(I read you every day)
Jack Tempchin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq5s6s43J28
--
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
You may not know it, but I've long admired your writing.
So it was that I was quite taken aback when a friend of mine in the States mentioned that you'd written a piece entitled 'Living In A Fantasy' - taking inspiration from my 1980 song.
It's a beautifully written article (as always) and I find it so very humbling that my words and creativity have such an effect on people.
When you're creating songs you never think of the effect, just putting down emotions as they come to you, trying to describe to yourself how you feel, to let it all out, air your thoughts. It's a very cathartic exercise, rewarding and satisfying too.
I have had a very long career, which is still going strong even though I'm now I'm in my 74th year.
I'm living these days near Sydney in Australia, still writing songs, making records, still performing gigs and tours with my voice as good as ever - and remarkably I've still got all my hair!
I feel blessed by my life as a songwriter, even more than my success as a singer, and articles like yours make it all worthwhile.
So, thank you!
Leo (Gerard Hugh) Sayer.
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
Subject: Leo Sayer video from Jack Tempchin
Hi Bob
In the year 2000 I had a birthday party every Monday night at "The Joint" on Pico and Sepulveda. I had "special guests" drop in and play with my core band.
Here is one night when Leo Sayer played. He was incredible.
There is backstage footage. Terry Reid, Waddy Wachtel, Rick Rosas, Bernard Fowler and Phil Jones and I were the band.
There was always a cast of characters backstage.
I had it all filmed and recorded and this year they are being posted.
Leo Sayer blew my mind. I had no idea from his records how great a singer he was.
thanks
(I read you every day)
Jack Tempchin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq5s6s43J28
--
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, 6 April 2022
The Tony Hawk Documentary
It's all about the personal.
This is a must for skateboarding fans, for everyone else? I don't know. Felice watched it separately and loved it. But one thing's for sure, this is a movie about skateboarding, too often docs focus on the penumbra, not the core, like music documentaries that don't feature the music, but you'll see Tony skate and you'll gain insight into who he is.
Which he had no idea of until he went into rehab after three failed marriages. Two of which are essentially skipped here. But I guess that would be a different movie.
So what you've got here is a "mistake" whose mother is 43 years old when he is born and whose siblings are twenty years his senior. Who discovers skateboarding and never lets go.
Most people don't have a passion, something they'll sacrifice everything for. So they don't understand the single-mindedness, the dedication of those who do. Furthermore, these people following their desire ultimately do it for themselves, because the accolades ring hollow.
This is very different from the mainstream paradigm, which is all about finding a way to get rich. Tony Hawk and his brethren in this flick just love to skateboard, they do so when no one is paying attention, they do so even though they're now in their fifties and sixties.
So Tony's father supports his passion. Like one of the skaters in the film, I can't imagine my father doing that. His father creates the organization to oversee skateboard competitions but having a father with sharp elbows makes it hard to be one of the group at the competition.
Males... There is rarely an accurate portrayal of them. There's all this talk about nerds and metrosexuals, but they are the minority. Being a male is being a part of a giant pecking order, with people always trying to push you down. If you're accepted, you move up the ladder. But to be accepted oftentimes you have to shave off your rough edges, take on the group's identity as opposed to your own, being different is anathema. But if you go your own way and raise your head it's going to be chopped off, not only by the obvious bullies but most males, even those who appear to be gentle. And this isn't only in sports, but in jobs, cars, men compete until they die. As if someone is really paying attention. Ultimately no one cares what car you drive, what house you live in, even about your accomplishments, because they're focused on themselves and there's always someone there to replace you. The hordes move on, where does that leave you?
So Tony makes it to the top and then the bottom falls out of skateboarding. A dance music promoter told me the music peaked every few years and then faded away, only to return once again. The Prodigy is big and everybody's into the music. Then it goes back to the hard core and waits for ignition again.
They thought skateboarding was forever, but it turned out it wasn't. That's what's hard to understand, you're making bank, people are cheering for you and then nobody cares, you're a has-been, Tony became a video editor, still skated while his then wife supported the family as a manicurist. And there's so much pressure to give up and go straight. Your significant other is usually only supportive to a point. Girls talk and consensus is you're a loser. But skating touches Tony's soul, it keeps him centered, it makes his life worth living, so he refuses to give it up. You can only survive if the public acknowledges your work, but that isn't always the case, or as with Tony, your job disappears.
And then years later it's resuscitated by the X Games.
I don't think young people today understand the power of television, the power of mass media. That was the goal, to get airtime, so everyone could see you. To a great degree that paradigm is dead, because nothing reaches everybody, except maybe the Super Bowl, which is why ad time is so expensive. Now being on TV is no big deal, there are too many outlets and you're competing with YouTube and social media, which are infinite. Same deal with radio, the younger generations don't listen to it, and the younger generations are the ones who move the needle on music.
Now if you go back to the early nineties it was a big deal that there was even a second ESPN. The X Games blew up extreme sports, supported the culture, which got very little promotion in the straight media but had huge impact amongst the demo. Which is always the case, those in charge can't see, never mind feel, the change.
Tony's father articulates something that stunned me in this world. That unlike the boomers, these competitors actually root for each other. It's oftentimes more important to have a good time than to win.
And skating could be done anywhere. You didn't need an ocean or mountains and snow. And with skating there was a culture, with apparel, the right shoes, shorts and t-shirts. And an attitude. This culture was supported by magazines and videos, back when information used to be scarce, outsiders found a world where they could be accepted. And it grew and grew. However ultimately Gen-X's kids rebelled against snowboarding, an outgrowth of skate culture, and went back to skiing. Everybody focused on money, screw your passion. So once again, the progenitors, the lifers, are left alone, doing their own thing, which they continue to do whether anybody is paying attention or not.
Maybe they know something the rest of us do not. But you see the skaters in this movie decades later and you wonder how they make a living. There's enough money for Tony, but a lot look bedraggled, only a few people can triumph financially in niche sports, maybe only one, and that's Tony.
Who has it all, takes advantage and realizes it's not fulfilling. I know, it sounds like a "Behind the Music" episode, but musicians are different, they take the stage, it's about performance, being larger than life, whereas Tony is so normal and nice.
That's what shocks you when you meet him. I've met a ton of celebrities, and they carry their charisma or send a message you should treat them differently. Tony is like your next door neighbor, home from spending time doing something you're unfamiliar with. He never boasts. He doesn't raise his voice. He'll treat you like an equal, which is shocking. He's not the usual celebrity.
But he is the usual star inside. That one-minded focus, that dedication, leaves blind spots. Tony goes on record that he has an intimacy problem. Most people won't even admit that. You're surrounded by people but you don't know how to deal with people. This is something you'll find if you meet your musician heroes, at least the aged ones. They did this because it was their only way out, their only way to meet people who wanted to be with them romantically, the only way they could have friends. But usually they only get the surface, the adoration, being put on a pedestal, people don't know them and oftentimes the performers don't know themselves.
So today it's all about showing your trappings, trying to get clicks, accolades. There are so many more opportunities than there were in the pre-internet era, but success is on a smaller scale than it ever was, at least in terms of reach, you might still be able to make money.
But the image you present is not real. Scroll through Instagram, you'll instantly feel inadequate, everybody's toned and beautiful. Then again, every once in a while one of the posters will put up a picture without makeup and they'll look completely normal, not special, not beautiful.
And why spend time making TikTok videos if people aren't going to see them? Everybody believes they're one click away from going viral. And if they go viral people will know them, they'll get paid and their life will work out. But this is not the case. It's the carrot dangled before you, but if you think being famous solves all your problems, you're dead wrong, you probably don't even know anyone truly famous.
No, in the end you have to become a fully developed person, engage the world just like everybody else, do your best to be real, to reveal your truth, which is scarce in today's society but is what we're all looking for.
So on the surface, "Until the Wheels Fall Off" is a skateboarding movie. But underneath the rolling wheels it's a human story, about society, the individual.
Now on a skateboarding level, nothing is left on the cutting room floor. It's all there. For you to learn and salivate over.
But on a human level...you've got to watch and connect the dots, figure out how the pieces fit together, try to figure out who these people are, what truly motivates them.
And Tony Hawk has suffered for his sport, his success. His body is bruised and broken, hell, he broke his femur just before this flick's release. But he will not stop. These people will not stop. They keep skating. As Rodney Mullen says near the end it's the intangibles that keep them going, pushing the envelope, he wishes the average person could see them, but they can't. This is the nirvana. You pay a huge price for it, but it's rare and elusive and most people don't get there. It's an inner feeling, not something you wear, an amount in your bank account. It's about being alive, self-satisfaction, happiness, a structure to your life. It's available to everybody but few want to pay their dues and carry the costs of achieving this heightened state.
But one thing is for sure, you can see it in this documentary. You can feel it. Tony Hawk is just the spearhead of a cultural movement. It's more of an attitude than a performance. Skateboarding was outside. Tony's told me he's thrilled it's in the Olympics, and I can see that it makes it more permanent, so the sport has staying power. But you can never buy back your outsider status. There is a cost to being co-opted, there is a cost for everybody being in on the joke and the story. Freestyle skiing was an outlaw sport. Now bump skiing is in the Olympics with man-made moguls and everybody replicating the same turns and tricks. It's become what the original freestylers hated, it's no longer free.
But those there in the beginning, they still remember. And what's stunning about the skaters in this movie is they're still the same people doing the same thing. Usually sports or arts activities are a whim, something you do for a while before you go straight. But not these guys, this is who they are. Watching them will have you pondering who you are. And that's the most important question in life.
On HBO: https://bit.ly/3uepEGA
--
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 a must for skateboarding fans, for everyone else? I don't know. Felice watched it separately and loved it. But one thing's for sure, this is a movie about skateboarding, too often docs focus on the penumbra, not the core, like music documentaries that don't feature the music, but you'll see Tony skate and you'll gain insight into who he is.
Which he had no idea of until he went into rehab after three failed marriages. Two of which are essentially skipped here. But I guess that would be a different movie.
So what you've got here is a "mistake" whose mother is 43 years old when he is born and whose siblings are twenty years his senior. Who discovers skateboarding and never lets go.
Most people don't have a passion, something they'll sacrifice everything for. So they don't understand the single-mindedness, the dedication of those who do. Furthermore, these people following their desire ultimately do it for themselves, because the accolades ring hollow.
This is very different from the mainstream paradigm, which is all about finding a way to get rich. Tony Hawk and his brethren in this flick just love to skateboard, they do so when no one is paying attention, they do so even though they're now in their fifties and sixties.
So Tony's father supports his passion. Like one of the skaters in the film, I can't imagine my father doing that. His father creates the organization to oversee skateboard competitions but having a father with sharp elbows makes it hard to be one of the group at the competition.
Males... There is rarely an accurate portrayal of them. There's all this talk about nerds and metrosexuals, but they are the minority. Being a male is being a part of a giant pecking order, with people always trying to push you down. If you're accepted, you move up the ladder. But to be accepted oftentimes you have to shave off your rough edges, take on the group's identity as opposed to your own, being different is anathema. But if you go your own way and raise your head it's going to be chopped off, not only by the obvious bullies but most males, even those who appear to be gentle. And this isn't only in sports, but in jobs, cars, men compete until they die. As if someone is really paying attention. Ultimately no one cares what car you drive, what house you live in, even about your accomplishments, because they're focused on themselves and there's always someone there to replace you. The hordes move on, where does that leave you?
So Tony makes it to the top and then the bottom falls out of skateboarding. A dance music promoter told me the music peaked every few years and then faded away, only to return once again. The Prodigy is big and everybody's into the music. Then it goes back to the hard core and waits for ignition again.
They thought skateboarding was forever, but it turned out it wasn't. That's what's hard to understand, you're making bank, people are cheering for you and then nobody cares, you're a has-been, Tony became a video editor, still skated while his then wife supported the family as a manicurist. And there's so much pressure to give up and go straight. Your significant other is usually only supportive to a point. Girls talk and consensus is you're a loser. But skating touches Tony's soul, it keeps him centered, it makes his life worth living, so he refuses to give it up. You can only survive if the public acknowledges your work, but that isn't always the case, or as with Tony, your job disappears.
And then years later it's resuscitated by the X Games.
I don't think young people today understand the power of television, the power of mass media. That was the goal, to get airtime, so everyone could see you. To a great degree that paradigm is dead, because nothing reaches everybody, except maybe the Super Bowl, which is why ad time is so expensive. Now being on TV is no big deal, there are too many outlets and you're competing with YouTube and social media, which are infinite. Same deal with radio, the younger generations don't listen to it, and the younger generations are the ones who move the needle on music.
Now if you go back to the early nineties it was a big deal that there was even a second ESPN. The X Games blew up extreme sports, supported the culture, which got very little promotion in the straight media but had huge impact amongst the demo. Which is always the case, those in charge can't see, never mind feel, the change.
Tony's father articulates something that stunned me in this world. That unlike the boomers, these competitors actually root for each other. It's oftentimes more important to have a good time than to win.
And skating could be done anywhere. You didn't need an ocean or mountains and snow. And with skating there was a culture, with apparel, the right shoes, shorts and t-shirts. And an attitude. This culture was supported by magazines and videos, back when information used to be scarce, outsiders found a world where they could be accepted. And it grew and grew. However ultimately Gen-X's kids rebelled against snowboarding, an outgrowth of skate culture, and went back to skiing. Everybody focused on money, screw your passion. So once again, the progenitors, the lifers, are left alone, doing their own thing, which they continue to do whether anybody is paying attention or not.
Maybe they know something the rest of us do not. But you see the skaters in this movie decades later and you wonder how they make a living. There's enough money for Tony, but a lot look bedraggled, only a few people can triumph financially in niche sports, maybe only one, and that's Tony.
Who has it all, takes advantage and realizes it's not fulfilling. I know, it sounds like a "Behind the Music" episode, but musicians are different, they take the stage, it's about performance, being larger than life, whereas Tony is so normal and nice.
That's what shocks you when you meet him. I've met a ton of celebrities, and they carry their charisma or send a message you should treat them differently. Tony is like your next door neighbor, home from spending time doing something you're unfamiliar with. He never boasts. He doesn't raise his voice. He'll treat you like an equal, which is shocking. He's not the usual celebrity.
But he is the usual star inside. That one-minded focus, that dedication, leaves blind spots. Tony goes on record that he has an intimacy problem. Most people won't even admit that. You're surrounded by people but you don't know how to deal with people. This is something you'll find if you meet your musician heroes, at least the aged ones. They did this because it was their only way out, their only way to meet people who wanted to be with them romantically, the only way they could have friends. But usually they only get the surface, the adoration, being put on a pedestal, people don't know them and oftentimes the performers don't know themselves.
So today it's all about showing your trappings, trying to get clicks, accolades. There are so many more opportunities than there were in the pre-internet era, but success is on a smaller scale than it ever was, at least in terms of reach, you might still be able to make money.
But the image you present is not real. Scroll through Instagram, you'll instantly feel inadequate, everybody's toned and beautiful. Then again, every once in a while one of the posters will put up a picture without makeup and they'll look completely normal, not special, not beautiful.
And why spend time making TikTok videos if people aren't going to see them? Everybody believes they're one click away from going viral. And if they go viral people will know them, they'll get paid and their life will work out. But this is not the case. It's the carrot dangled before you, but if you think being famous solves all your problems, you're dead wrong, you probably don't even know anyone truly famous.
No, in the end you have to become a fully developed person, engage the world just like everybody else, do your best to be real, to reveal your truth, which is scarce in today's society but is what we're all looking for.
So on the surface, "Until the Wheels Fall Off" is a skateboarding movie. But underneath the rolling wheels it's a human story, about society, the individual.
Now on a skateboarding level, nothing is left on the cutting room floor. It's all there. For you to learn and salivate over.
But on a human level...you've got to watch and connect the dots, figure out how the pieces fit together, try to figure out who these people are, what truly motivates them.
And Tony Hawk has suffered for his sport, his success. His body is bruised and broken, hell, he broke his femur just before this flick's release. But he will not stop. These people will not stop. They keep skating. As Rodney Mullen says near the end it's the intangibles that keep them going, pushing the envelope, he wishes the average person could see them, but they can't. This is the nirvana. You pay a huge price for it, but it's rare and elusive and most people don't get there. It's an inner feeling, not something you wear, an amount in your bank account. It's about being alive, self-satisfaction, happiness, a structure to your life. It's available to everybody but few want to pay their dues and carry the costs of achieving this heightened state.
But one thing is for sure, you can see it in this documentary. You can feel it. Tony Hawk is just the spearhead of a cultural movement. It's more of an attitude than a performance. Skateboarding was outside. Tony's told me he's thrilled it's in the Olympics, and I can see that it makes it more permanent, so the sport has staying power. But you can never buy back your outsider status. There is a cost to being co-opted, there is a cost for everybody being in on the joke and the story. Freestyle skiing was an outlaw sport. Now bump skiing is in the Olympics with man-made moguls and everybody replicating the same turns and tricks. It's become what the original freestylers hated, it's no longer free.
But those there in the beginning, they still remember. And what's stunning about the skaters in this movie is they're still the same people doing the same thing. Usually sports or arts activities are a whim, something you do for a while before you go straight. But not these guys, this is who they are. Watching them will have you pondering who you are. And that's the most important question in life.
On HBO: https://bit.ly/3uepEGA
--
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
Living In A Fantasy
Is everything disposable? Does everything have a lifespan?
Seemingly every day a song gets stuck in my head, I wake up singing it to myself. And usually I can't figure out what started it. Two days ago it was the Hollies' "Carrie Anne." Today it's Leo Sayer's "Living in a Fantasy." You probably know the former. Although when it was a hit you probably couldn't name a single member of the group and could not have foreseen that Graham Nash would exit, move to California, and become one third of a supergroup whose music is still resonating. As for "Living in a Fantasy," I doubt you know it. And if you're under thirty, you probably don't know either.
I wish I'd written an article in today's "New York Times" entitled:
"Baseball Is Dying. The Government Should Take It Over.": https://nyti.ms/3LHkhpi
Before you libertarians get your knickers in a twist, I don't agree baseball should be nationalized, and I don't really think the writer does either, but the statistics he delineates make it clear, like the Grammys, baseball is in a death spiral.
First there's the TV ratings:
"Attendance at games has declined steadily since 2008 and viewership figures are almost hilariously bleak. An ordinary national prime-time M.L.B. broadcast, such as ESPN's 'Sunday Night Baseball,' attracts some 1.5 million pairs of eyes each week, which is to say, roughly the number that are likely to be watching a heavily censored version of 'Goodfellas' on a basic cable movie channel in the same time slot.
Even the World Series attracts smaller audiences than the average 'Thursday Night Football' broadcast, the dregs of the National Football League's weekly schedule. In 1975, the World Series had an average of 36 million viewers per game; in 2021, it barely attracted 12 million per game."
And then there's the economics:
"Casual observers may assume that despite this lack of popularity, baseball is still somehow insanely valuable. This is an illusion. Major League Baseball generated around $11 billion in revenue in 2019, but this figure does not accurately reflect the demand for its product. The astronomical salaries that continue to be enjoyed by the sport's stars (if that is the mot juste) are a result not of the game's nonexistent popularity but of the economics of cable television providers, who bundle regional sports networks alongside dozens of other channels so that anyone with cable TV is buying baseball whether he likes it or not."
Yes, baseball is being propped up by a dying television paradigm that is not only on its way to being superseded, it is being superseded as I write this.
Basic cable is in its death throes. The old bundle model is history. Paying for so much you don't want. Today you pay for what you do want, subscriptions to the streaming giants like Netflix and Disney+, and if you really care about the rearguard you get an antenna for network TV or buy an ever-increasingly expensive skinny internet bundle from the likes of Google and Sling. And the younger generation sees no need for either, just like they see no need for a landline.
Things change, and those dedicated to them refuse to acknowledge this.
Both the Grammys and the MLB are going to be SOL when the TV payments crash. But both luxuriate in the present glory, as if it is forever. And believe me, they'll bitch when the cheese is moved, just like all the musicians when the old label paradigm collapsed with the advent of the internet. Players are still mourning the days of the major label keeping scores of acts alive, whether they were successful or not. Those days are through, the economics have changed.
Now the amount of ink about the MLB lockout was voluminous, as it was for the Grammy telecast. This publicity makes it seem like these are universal attractions everyone follows with bated breath.
"Culturally, too, the game is increasingly irrelevant. The average age of a person watching a baseball game on television is 57, and one shudders to think what the comparable figure is for radio broadcasts. Typical American 10-year-olds are as likely to recognize Jorge Soler, who was named the most valuable player of last year's World Series, as they are their local congressional representative."
And:
"In some parts of the country, participation in Little League has decreased by nearly 50 percent in the past decade and a half."
In other words, everything the boomers hold dear is fading in the rearview mirror. Everything that looked to be forever, bedrock, turns out not to be.
There's a generation gap. Which is hard for boomers to fathom, since they were the original ones who separated from their parents, and they insist they'll be hip until they die. They think since their kids call them every day on the cellphone, or text them, that they know what is going on. But they don't. Ask a boomer about the metaverse, crypto and NFTs and if they know what they are, they'll say how they're irrelevant junk, doomed to failure. But they are not. They may not look like they do today, just like Facebook eclipsed MySpace, but the underlying concept is valid, just like concerts in virtual worlds like Roblox are burgeoning.
Which brings us back to the music. Turns out very little of the classic rock canon is going to last. The Beatles, yes. But maybe not even the Rolling Stones. The work of the great songwriters, like Carole King...she, herself, may not be remembered, but her songs will.
Which brings us to today's music. Today there is a tsunami of product in every category. That's one of the things hurting mass, the concept is passé, everybody is in their own niche. Last night I heard Loverboy's "Workin' for the Weekend" over the grocery store PA. What are the odds today's music will play that role. "Working for the Weekend" is classic, it's forty years old, which of today's tracks will be universal in forty years? Almost none.
But institutions keep acting like the paradigm of the past is forever, while they continue to drop, one by one, just like the musicians of yore.
Did you see that Bobby Rydell died? That was a different era, music was entertainment, disposable, made for kids. Then the Beatles came along and wiped all those old acts from the map, suddenly music was taken seriously. If you're taking today's music seriously you have no sense of history and no sense of context. There are a lot of things more primary than music, like the war in Ukraine and politics, things that everybody has heard of and has an opinion on, whereas most of today's hit music has been heard by only a minority of the population.
There is revenue in small, but the money is always in big, in scale. But don't expect the people promoted through the ranks at record labels to understand this, and it's such an insider club that outsiders are reluctant to participate, they can make more money much easier in other fields.
Which brings us back to Leo Sayer.
Roger Daltrey's first solo album was comprised of covers of his tunes, written with David Courtney, who almost no readers know. But there were two tracks that Courtney wrote with Adam Faith. That was a selling point, Adam Faith's involvement in "Daltrey." I bet you boomers on this side of the pond might still recognize the name, but the credits have been lost to history.
It took a while for Leo Sayer to break in America. And it only happened when he broadened his sound, added humor, connected with the dance craze taking over the country. "Long Tall Glasses (I Can Dance)" was all over AM radio in 1974. Then again, anybody who truly loved music was listening to FM, almost exclusively. Ditto with 1976's "You Make Me Feel Like Dancing." Nobody listening to FM rock wanted to dance, at least not in platform shoes and a leisure suit, but that track went to number one in 1976. It was a moment in time, that quickly faded. But I remembered "One Man Band" and "Giving it all Away," so when I saw 1980's "Living in a Fantasy" in the promo bin, for either $1.99 or $2.49, I'd have to find the record, the sticker is still on it, promos weren't shrink-wrapped, I bought it. There was actually a hit on the record, a cover of Sonny Curtis and Jerry Allison's "More Than I Can Say," but it didn't drive album sales, because AM was about singles, FM was about albums, and AM play didn't sell albums.
But that's not what I remember about the "Living in a Fantasy" album. No, it's two songs, "Where Did we Go Wrong," and the title tune.
"You, you are my reason to live
You make me shine with all the love that you give
And when I think of you I keep driftin' away
Little by little I love you more every day"
And those might sound like bland, relatively predictable lyrics, but the acoustic guitar and emotional delivery add gravitas. But then comes the magic bridge:
"I lay in bed but I just can't sleep
I close my eyes and you're all that I see
I can't believe that it's happening to me"
Bridge? Some of today's hit records only have one chord, and believe me, they're not "Tomorrow Never Knows."
But Leo Sayer was not only a songwriter, in this case with the lost to the sands of time Alan Tarney, he was also a singer.
A singer is not someone with perfect pipes, although they might possess them, no, a singer is someone who can sell a song, someone who can wring the emotion in the lyrics, convince you that they mean what they're singing.
And the piece-de-resistance of "Living in a Fantasy" is the final section, a whole new melody, a heightened emotion, you can feel the desire in the words:
"Oh, you're too much, too soon, too strong
But I want drown in your touch
Don't keep me floating too long"
We've all felt this, it's the essence of being in love. A magic feeling that cannot be replicated anywhere else, something you live for. It fades, but the memory keeps the relationship going, however there are those addicted to it and keep bouncing from person to person, in love with being in love.
It's all there, in one song.
And I've spent much of my life living in a fantasy. Less now, today I'm much more integrated in society, credit the internet and a ton of psychotherapy. But I have not lost the ability to slip back into that old mode, all it takes is a song, not any song, only specific ones. They take me away, to a better place.
That's the essence of music, any music. And it's the upbeat songs that get us moving, but it's the contemplative serious ones that change our lives, that help us keep going.
I could square this with today's world, what's been gained and lost in the years. But to a degree it's a fool's errand, it makes oldsters feel good but youngsters don't care, and it's their world now.
And as we age will these stars of yore tour our condo communities?
Probably, at least those still alive. We boomers are fading into the sunset, you age and you realize it, and if you're fighting it you're delusional, it's the nature of life. Aging is freedom, you let go of so much b.s., and you also gain perspective, not that anybody wants to hear what you have to say, you're just moving down the conveyor belt of life and to those just beginning everything is brand new, they don't care about history, and then they slip down the line themselves.
But we didn't think this would happen.
We lived through something, that is being lost to the sands of time. Everybody says it's still the same, that the music is just as good, means the same to listeners, but that is patently untrue, that's just a way to rationalize their continued existence in this business. They're living in a fantasy.
But so am I.
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3DLKTmm
YouTube: https://bit.ly/3LM4JAy
Seemingly every day a song gets stuck in my head, I wake up singing it to myself. And usually I can't figure out what started it. Two days ago it was the Hollies' "Carrie Anne." Today it's Leo Sayer's "Living in a Fantasy." You probably know the former. Although when it was a hit you probably couldn't name a single member of the group and could not have foreseen that Graham Nash would exit, move to California, and become one third of a supergroup whose music is still resonating. As for "Living in a Fantasy," I doubt you know it. And if you're under thirty, you probably don't know either.
I wish I'd written an article in today's "New York Times" entitled:
"Baseball Is Dying. The Government Should Take It Over.": https://nyti.ms/3LHkhpi
Before you libertarians get your knickers in a twist, I don't agree baseball should be nationalized, and I don't really think the writer does either, but the statistics he delineates make it clear, like the Grammys, baseball is in a death spiral.
First there's the TV ratings:
"Attendance at games has declined steadily since 2008 and viewership figures are almost hilariously bleak. An ordinary national prime-time M.L.B. broadcast, such as ESPN's 'Sunday Night Baseball,' attracts some 1.5 million pairs of eyes each week, which is to say, roughly the number that are likely to be watching a heavily censored version of 'Goodfellas' on a basic cable movie channel in the same time slot.
Even the World Series attracts smaller audiences than the average 'Thursday Night Football' broadcast, the dregs of the National Football League's weekly schedule. In 1975, the World Series had an average of 36 million viewers per game; in 2021, it barely attracted 12 million per game."
And then there's the economics:
"Casual observers may assume that despite this lack of popularity, baseball is still somehow insanely valuable. This is an illusion. Major League Baseball generated around $11 billion in revenue in 2019, but this figure does not accurately reflect the demand for its product. The astronomical salaries that continue to be enjoyed by the sport's stars (if that is the mot juste) are a result not of the game's nonexistent popularity but of the economics of cable television providers, who bundle regional sports networks alongside dozens of other channels so that anyone with cable TV is buying baseball whether he likes it or not."
Yes, baseball is being propped up by a dying television paradigm that is not only on its way to being superseded, it is being superseded as I write this.
Basic cable is in its death throes. The old bundle model is history. Paying for so much you don't want. Today you pay for what you do want, subscriptions to the streaming giants like Netflix and Disney+, and if you really care about the rearguard you get an antenna for network TV or buy an ever-increasingly expensive skinny internet bundle from the likes of Google and Sling. And the younger generation sees no need for either, just like they see no need for a landline.
Things change, and those dedicated to them refuse to acknowledge this.
Both the Grammys and the MLB are going to be SOL when the TV payments crash. But both luxuriate in the present glory, as if it is forever. And believe me, they'll bitch when the cheese is moved, just like all the musicians when the old label paradigm collapsed with the advent of the internet. Players are still mourning the days of the major label keeping scores of acts alive, whether they were successful or not. Those days are through, the economics have changed.
Now the amount of ink about the MLB lockout was voluminous, as it was for the Grammy telecast. This publicity makes it seem like these are universal attractions everyone follows with bated breath.
"Culturally, too, the game is increasingly irrelevant. The average age of a person watching a baseball game on television is 57, and one shudders to think what the comparable figure is for radio broadcasts. Typical American 10-year-olds are as likely to recognize Jorge Soler, who was named the most valuable player of last year's World Series, as they are their local congressional representative."
And:
"In some parts of the country, participation in Little League has decreased by nearly 50 percent in the past decade and a half."
In other words, everything the boomers hold dear is fading in the rearview mirror. Everything that looked to be forever, bedrock, turns out not to be.
There's a generation gap. Which is hard for boomers to fathom, since they were the original ones who separated from their parents, and they insist they'll be hip until they die. They think since their kids call them every day on the cellphone, or text them, that they know what is going on. But they don't. Ask a boomer about the metaverse, crypto and NFTs and if they know what they are, they'll say how they're irrelevant junk, doomed to failure. But they are not. They may not look like they do today, just like Facebook eclipsed MySpace, but the underlying concept is valid, just like concerts in virtual worlds like Roblox are burgeoning.
Which brings us back to the music. Turns out very little of the classic rock canon is going to last. The Beatles, yes. But maybe not even the Rolling Stones. The work of the great songwriters, like Carole King...she, herself, may not be remembered, but her songs will.
Which brings us to today's music. Today there is a tsunami of product in every category. That's one of the things hurting mass, the concept is passé, everybody is in their own niche. Last night I heard Loverboy's "Workin' for the Weekend" over the grocery store PA. What are the odds today's music will play that role. "Working for the Weekend" is classic, it's forty years old, which of today's tracks will be universal in forty years? Almost none.
But institutions keep acting like the paradigm of the past is forever, while they continue to drop, one by one, just like the musicians of yore.
Did you see that Bobby Rydell died? That was a different era, music was entertainment, disposable, made for kids. Then the Beatles came along and wiped all those old acts from the map, suddenly music was taken seriously. If you're taking today's music seriously you have no sense of history and no sense of context. There are a lot of things more primary than music, like the war in Ukraine and politics, things that everybody has heard of and has an opinion on, whereas most of today's hit music has been heard by only a minority of the population.
There is revenue in small, but the money is always in big, in scale. But don't expect the people promoted through the ranks at record labels to understand this, and it's such an insider club that outsiders are reluctant to participate, they can make more money much easier in other fields.
Which brings us back to Leo Sayer.
Roger Daltrey's first solo album was comprised of covers of his tunes, written with David Courtney, who almost no readers know. But there were two tracks that Courtney wrote with Adam Faith. That was a selling point, Adam Faith's involvement in "Daltrey." I bet you boomers on this side of the pond might still recognize the name, but the credits have been lost to history.
It took a while for Leo Sayer to break in America. And it only happened when he broadened his sound, added humor, connected with the dance craze taking over the country. "Long Tall Glasses (I Can Dance)" was all over AM radio in 1974. Then again, anybody who truly loved music was listening to FM, almost exclusively. Ditto with 1976's "You Make Me Feel Like Dancing." Nobody listening to FM rock wanted to dance, at least not in platform shoes and a leisure suit, but that track went to number one in 1976. It was a moment in time, that quickly faded. But I remembered "One Man Band" and "Giving it all Away," so when I saw 1980's "Living in a Fantasy" in the promo bin, for either $1.99 or $2.49, I'd have to find the record, the sticker is still on it, promos weren't shrink-wrapped, I bought it. There was actually a hit on the record, a cover of Sonny Curtis and Jerry Allison's "More Than I Can Say," but it didn't drive album sales, because AM was about singles, FM was about albums, and AM play didn't sell albums.
But that's not what I remember about the "Living in a Fantasy" album. No, it's two songs, "Where Did we Go Wrong," and the title tune.
"You, you are my reason to live
You make me shine with all the love that you give
And when I think of you I keep driftin' away
Little by little I love you more every day"
And those might sound like bland, relatively predictable lyrics, but the acoustic guitar and emotional delivery add gravitas. But then comes the magic bridge:
"I lay in bed but I just can't sleep
I close my eyes and you're all that I see
I can't believe that it's happening to me"
Bridge? Some of today's hit records only have one chord, and believe me, they're not "Tomorrow Never Knows."
But Leo Sayer was not only a songwriter, in this case with the lost to the sands of time Alan Tarney, he was also a singer.
A singer is not someone with perfect pipes, although they might possess them, no, a singer is someone who can sell a song, someone who can wring the emotion in the lyrics, convince you that they mean what they're singing.
And the piece-de-resistance of "Living in a Fantasy" is the final section, a whole new melody, a heightened emotion, you can feel the desire in the words:
"Oh, you're too much, too soon, too strong
But I want drown in your touch
Don't keep me floating too long"
We've all felt this, it's the essence of being in love. A magic feeling that cannot be replicated anywhere else, something you live for. It fades, but the memory keeps the relationship going, however there are those addicted to it and keep bouncing from person to person, in love with being in love.
It's all there, in one song.
And I've spent much of my life living in a fantasy. Less now, today I'm much more integrated in society, credit the internet and a ton of psychotherapy. But I have not lost the ability to slip back into that old mode, all it takes is a song, not any song, only specific ones. They take me away, to a better place.
That's the essence of music, any music. And it's the upbeat songs that get us moving, but it's the contemplative serious ones that change our lives, that help us keep going.
I could square this with today's world, what's been gained and lost in the years. But to a degree it's a fool's errand, it makes oldsters feel good but youngsters don't care, and it's their world now.
And as we age will these stars of yore tour our condo communities?
Probably, at least those still alive. We boomers are fading into the sunset, you age and you realize it, and if you're fighting it you're delusional, it's the nature of life. Aging is freedom, you let go of so much b.s., and you also gain perspective, not that anybody wants to hear what you have to say, you're just moving down the conveyor belt of life and to those just beginning everything is brand new, they don't care about history, and then they slip down the line themselves.
But we didn't think this would happen.
We lived through something, that is being lost to the sands of time. Everybody says it's still the same, that the music is just as good, means the same to listeners, but that is patently untrue, that's just a way to rationalize their continued existence in this business. They're living in a fantasy.
But so am I.
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3DLKTmm
YouTube: https://bit.ly/3LM4JAy
--
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, 5 April 2022
Edgar Winter-This Week On SiriusXM
Edgar Winter calls in to talk about his new tribute album "Brother Johnny."
Tune in today, April 5th, to Volume 106, 7 PM East, 4 PM West.
Phone #: 844-6-VOLUME, 844-686-5863
Twitter: @lefsetz or @siriusxmvolume/#lefsetzlive
Hear the episode live on SiriusXM VOLUME: siriusxm.us/HearLefsetzLive
If you miss the episode, you can hear it on demand on the SiriusXM app: siriusxm.us/LefsetzLive
--
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
Tune in today, April 5th, to Volume 106, 7 PM East, 4 PM West.
Phone #: 844-6-VOLUME, 844-686-5863
Twitter: @lefsetz or @siriusxmvolume/#lefsetzlive
Hear the episode live on SiriusXM VOLUME: siriusxm.us/HearLefsetzLive
If you miss the episode, you can hear it on demand on the SiriusXM app: siriusxm.us/LefsetzLive
--
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, 4 April 2022
The Grammy Ratings
Were terrible.
"Grammys Viewership Edges Out Last Year's Record Low With Minor Gain": https://bit.ly/3r3zw3V
And that's putting a positive spin on it.
The story of the last two plus decades in the record business has been disruption. But the Grammy organization keeps on doing the same damn thing and expecting different results. A woman was brought in to run the place and the criticism was she wanted change too fast...if that doesn't sound like a bunch of old men afraid of their cheese being moved I don't know what does.
The record labels tried to hold back the future with lawsuits, while they extolled the quality of CDs. Then they said track sales were the future, halting the slide in revenue as a result of Steve Jobs's proactive measure. And then Daniel Ek came along and saved the industry. Apple was famously against streaming and bought Beats to try and solve their problem, even though Beats Music was not of competitive quality and the software had to be rewritten and the execs had to be furloughed.
And at this late date there are people who want to resist all of the above. They want streaming halted when it saved the business! Someone always loses and someone always wins when change happens. The key is to get on board, to get ahead of change and ride the wave. Yelling at people to bring back the past never works.
So CBS thought it was inviolate. As did all the established Hollywood companies. Even the public resisted Netflix streaming. But Reed Hastings saw the future and executed and not only did the public play into his hand, but so did Hollywood. The studios didn't wake up for years! They loved the license fees Netflix paid. And now they've all started streaming services, but Netflix has first mover advantage and is now the undisputed champion. Sure, the studios have their libraries, and that's important, but Netflix has poured billions of dollars into new production, which drives the television industry as well as the music industry. Just like the rearguard labels wield their catalogs to make profitable deals with anybody in the tech space. If anything, these old companies want to hold back the future, but it comes anyway.
But there are legacy deals, like the one CBS has with the Grammys. And so inured to the CBS cash the Grammys are not preparing for the future whatsoever. Who is going to rescue the Grammys? Certainly not Harvey Mason Jr., who's part of the club. Only outsiders can clean house and jet the organization into the future, but outsiders are not allowed to play in the entertainment industry, the established players do their best to keep them out. It's a club and you're not in it. And who would want to work with these wankers anyway, especially after the Deborah Dugan debacle.
Awards shows are dead. Come up with something different. I could give and have given multiple ideas, but the Grammy organization doesn't listen.
As for the under 10 million people who saw this show...
We live in a country of 340 million. Less than 5% tuned into this show. Think about it, if you were a concert promoter and the act was booked in a stadium and they sold the number of tickets they would have in a theatre, would you book them again? As for the act, no one likes to play to empty seats. They lie and pull down the show and try to reinvent themselves, come up with something better. What does the Grammys come up with? More nominees! In some of these categories you can win the trophy with far less than half the vote, a quarter of the vote, are these the real winners anyway?
Which brings us to the bullseye. Most people don't want the acts the Grammys, the recording industry, are purveying. Hell, Spotify told you, the rate of catalog streams is going up and up, which means the old music is more palatable than the new. Music used to drive the culture, now it's a sideshow most people shrug their shoulders at and don't bother to participate in. The business is moribund, being driven right off the cliff. Radio was disrupted by on demand online. And now even streaming services are being disrupted by TikTok. Notice nobody in the music industry came up with TikTok. Someone could have bought musical.ly, but it took the Chinese to purchase it and blow it up. The music industry has historically been anti use by the public. But the world has changed, remix culture is here.
And then there's the dreaded variety show format with commercials. This is kind of like when they blast heavy metal as punishment in prisons. To watch the show is torture. Turns out almost nobody wants to.
So the recording industry pats its back and evidences that it's completely out of touch. Last night's Grammys were a disaster. The ship is heading right for the iceberg and they keep on partying. Believe me, if someone owned the Grammys heads would roll, but everybody's sucking at the tit of the nonprofit organization and they want no change.
Historically it's been a new musical sound that's disrupted the old one. But that hasn't happened in two decades. Maybe the labels have to be more proactive, more creative. Turns out most people don't want what they're selling. There's a much bigger business trapped inside but no one sitting at the controls has any idea how to tap it. Music is a street business. And it's all about the money. Which means the only smart people involved are hustlers, and outsiders are denigrated. That's the criticism of Daniel Ek, he doesn't play an instrument, he's never made a record, he doesn't understand...but that's why he does understand! He started with a fresh slate, wiped off the detritus and built Spotify from the ground up. I'd tell you how hard it was but you won't believe it, the same way you won't believe vaccines work for Covid.
So what is gonna happen here?
NOTHING!
Clayton Christensen said the innovation starts cheap and imperfect but then gets better and trumps the established players. So his advice is to disrupt yourself. That that's your only hope, otherwise someone will disrupt you. The VMAs disrupted the Grammys because MTV knew it was irrelevant who won, they were creating a show to be watched, and there was a spirit of irreverence as opposed to gravitas. Someone needs to throw the proverbial bomb into the Grammy building, metaphorical, of course. But in truth outsiders will create their own game with its own mores and triumph. It'll look like it happened overnight, but one thing is for sure is it will happen, it's just a matter of when. The Grammys need to disrupt themselves, they need new blood, and by that I don't mean musicians with credits, but people familiar with how to change organizations. Nothing is forever, you either change or die.
The Grammys are on their way to death.
--
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
"Grammys Viewership Edges Out Last Year's Record Low With Minor Gain": https://bit.ly/3r3zw3V
And that's putting a positive spin on it.
The story of the last two plus decades in the record business has been disruption. But the Grammy organization keeps on doing the same damn thing and expecting different results. A woman was brought in to run the place and the criticism was she wanted change too fast...if that doesn't sound like a bunch of old men afraid of their cheese being moved I don't know what does.
The record labels tried to hold back the future with lawsuits, while they extolled the quality of CDs. Then they said track sales were the future, halting the slide in revenue as a result of Steve Jobs's proactive measure. And then Daniel Ek came along and saved the industry. Apple was famously against streaming and bought Beats to try and solve their problem, even though Beats Music was not of competitive quality and the software had to be rewritten and the execs had to be furloughed.
And at this late date there are people who want to resist all of the above. They want streaming halted when it saved the business! Someone always loses and someone always wins when change happens. The key is to get on board, to get ahead of change and ride the wave. Yelling at people to bring back the past never works.
So CBS thought it was inviolate. As did all the established Hollywood companies. Even the public resisted Netflix streaming. But Reed Hastings saw the future and executed and not only did the public play into his hand, but so did Hollywood. The studios didn't wake up for years! They loved the license fees Netflix paid. And now they've all started streaming services, but Netflix has first mover advantage and is now the undisputed champion. Sure, the studios have their libraries, and that's important, but Netflix has poured billions of dollars into new production, which drives the television industry as well as the music industry. Just like the rearguard labels wield their catalogs to make profitable deals with anybody in the tech space. If anything, these old companies want to hold back the future, but it comes anyway.
But there are legacy deals, like the one CBS has with the Grammys. And so inured to the CBS cash the Grammys are not preparing for the future whatsoever. Who is going to rescue the Grammys? Certainly not Harvey Mason Jr., who's part of the club. Only outsiders can clean house and jet the organization into the future, but outsiders are not allowed to play in the entertainment industry, the established players do their best to keep them out. It's a club and you're not in it. And who would want to work with these wankers anyway, especially after the Deborah Dugan debacle.
Awards shows are dead. Come up with something different. I could give and have given multiple ideas, but the Grammy organization doesn't listen.
As for the under 10 million people who saw this show...
We live in a country of 340 million. Less than 5% tuned into this show. Think about it, if you were a concert promoter and the act was booked in a stadium and they sold the number of tickets they would have in a theatre, would you book them again? As for the act, no one likes to play to empty seats. They lie and pull down the show and try to reinvent themselves, come up with something better. What does the Grammys come up with? More nominees! In some of these categories you can win the trophy with far less than half the vote, a quarter of the vote, are these the real winners anyway?
Which brings us to the bullseye. Most people don't want the acts the Grammys, the recording industry, are purveying. Hell, Spotify told you, the rate of catalog streams is going up and up, which means the old music is more palatable than the new. Music used to drive the culture, now it's a sideshow most people shrug their shoulders at and don't bother to participate in. The business is moribund, being driven right off the cliff. Radio was disrupted by on demand online. And now even streaming services are being disrupted by TikTok. Notice nobody in the music industry came up with TikTok. Someone could have bought musical.ly, but it took the Chinese to purchase it and blow it up. The music industry has historically been anti use by the public. But the world has changed, remix culture is here.
And then there's the dreaded variety show format with commercials. This is kind of like when they blast heavy metal as punishment in prisons. To watch the show is torture. Turns out almost nobody wants to.
So the recording industry pats its back and evidences that it's completely out of touch. Last night's Grammys were a disaster. The ship is heading right for the iceberg and they keep on partying. Believe me, if someone owned the Grammys heads would roll, but everybody's sucking at the tit of the nonprofit organization and they want no change.
Historically it's been a new musical sound that's disrupted the old one. But that hasn't happened in two decades. Maybe the labels have to be more proactive, more creative. Turns out most people don't want what they're selling. There's a much bigger business trapped inside but no one sitting at the controls has any idea how to tap it. Music is a street business. And it's all about the money. Which means the only smart people involved are hustlers, and outsiders are denigrated. That's the criticism of Daniel Ek, he doesn't play an instrument, he's never made a record, he doesn't understand...but that's why he does understand! He started with a fresh slate, wiped off the detritus and built Spotify from the ground up. I'd tell you how hard it was but you won't believe it, the same way you won't believe vaccines work for Covid.
So what is gonna happen here?
NOTHING!
Clayton Christensen said the innovation starts cheap and imperfect but then gets better and trumps the established players. So his advice is to disrupt yourself. That that's your only hope, otherwise someone will disrupt you. The VMAs disrupted the Grammys because MTV knew it was irrelevant who won, they were creating a show to be watched, and there was a spirit of irreverence as opposed to gravitas. Someone needs to throw the proverbial bomb into the Grammy building, metaphorical, of course. But in truth outsiders will create their own game with its own mores and triumph. It'll look like it happened overnight, but one thing is for sure is it will happen, it's just a matter of when. The Grammys need to disrupt themselves, they need new blood, and by that I don't mean musicians with credits, but people familiar with how to change organizations. Nothing is forever, you either change or die.
The Grammys are on their way to death.
--
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
The Jon Batiste Victory
The producer can only do so much.
At least the Grammys are smart enough to get an outsider, as opposed to the Oscars, which constantly use someone from their industry with ties to the past and no skill putting on a TV show. But Ben Winston can't control the voting.
Everyone agrees that last night's Grammy telecast was a vast improvement over those of the previous decade plus. First and foremost it was decided to wipe the detritus of the past and focus on the new. But that just made it more confusing for the aged Grammy viewers unfamiliar with the acts and their music, as for the youngsters, who in hell could sit through all those commercials? I guess they're going to run this paradigm into the ground. In a world where you can do your best to never see a TV commercial to watch the Grammys in real time is torture.
Not that I watched much.
I wasn't going to watch any at all. But my friends had it on and I watched forty minutes, a good chunk of which was commercials, and the final ten minutes, wanting to say good night to said friends.
And I won't give a whole review of the show, the little I saw or that which I read about, because I really don't care. There's a whole publicity industry built around these awards shows and I'd like to know who eats up this information. Hype does not pay the dividends it used to. And as far as reviews, if you saw it you don't need to read about it, and those who didn't see it don't care.
As for a memorable moment, I haven't heard about one yet.
But what gets me to put fingers to keyboard is the Jon Batiste victory for Album of the Year. It undercuts all credibility for the Grammys. The dude gave a great speech, talking about how competition in the arts is not a factor, but reaching those who need the music is, however...HOW IN THE HELL DID THIS GUY WIN?
It's not like the Oscars, lauding a good picture that no one has seen. It's out of touch members voting for their personal preferences, screw the rest of the world. And I wouldn't care, except the Grammys keep telling us how hip and on point they are, in bed with the labels to put on a happening TV show and then...
Yes, are the big Grammy awards for popular music, or are they an inside baseball affair for the voters?
Have you heard Batiste's album? I doubt it, it barely made a dent on the charts, and two songs have nine million streams on Spotify, but six of them don't even break seven figures (which is a million, for the math challenged). And don't think a million streams is much, a Top 50 song can easily do a million streams A DAY!
But it's hard for oldsters to comprehend the new metrics. A million used to be a lot. A million albums, wow, you're platinum! But the metric has changed from sales to plays and those who've lost in the process, because their music is not listened to that much, can't stop complaining. It is commerce, not art. It is a business, it's not a charity. And if you don't put up the numbers you make less. However, in today's internet world there are many possible streams of revenue, but chances are if you have low streams you have little business elsewhere. Why does everybody continue to believe they deserve to be monetarily successful in the arts? Study the bands from the heyday of the classic rock era, in many cases they didn't give up their day jobs until after their first tour after their album was a hit. But today, if you decide you're an artist, you believe you deserve to be able to make a living by only playing your music. Insane. Then again, in today's world no one can handle the truth. In a world where truth is fungible anyway. Conventional wisdom is Spotify is the devil stealing from artists and Ticketmaster keeps all the fees and the artists have been screwed. Today it's all about emotions, feel, and that does not mean truth, no way, and it's not only in music.
So, by awarding Jon Batiste the big trophy, the Grammys have undercut their credibility.
Credibility. That used to be key before it all became about money. Yes, Reagan legitimized greed, the boomers sold out and ever since it's been about the gross. And the oldsters in control of the levers of power keep telling us young people don't care about sponsorships or endorsements when the truth is they just want their percentage thereof. Credibility as a concept never dies, it's just that few people embrace it. We are looking for credibility, especially in the arts, where honesty prevails, a cousin of credibility. Sans credibility you've got disposability, like so much of today's music, just like the Grammy telecast itself. One great credible thing can survive the ages, trump a ton of hype and endorsement, but it's hard to deliver honesty from the heart and stand up to the man, the system.
The system. I saw Harvey Mason Jr.'s speech. At least they pre-taped it, so there would be no faux pas. And the roundup of musicians saying they were the Academy was well done. But then you give the big award to Jon Batiste? It makes me think the Academy is made up of the people testifying who've never made it, and probably never will. The Motion Picture Academy is exclusive, not anybody can join, they still haven't let Rob Schneider in. But the majority of the Recording Academy is people who've never had a hit, who've never had commercial success, and that's fine, but should they be voting for consumer-facing awards?
Of course not.
The public is led to believe these are the best records out there. They know there are vagaries in the system, but when something totally left field wins a big award, they scratch their heads and move on.
Which is exactly what is happening to the baby boomers. Once again, give Ben Winston credit for breaking with the classic rock past. But the business is still run by boomers, and they've got to go. Gen-X'ers too. Everybody who remembers music before the internet is tied to a paradigm that no longer exists. Metrics that no longer make sense.
Which comes down to the Grammy telecast itself. A variety show? Network TV will air anything that garners eyeballs, and they gave up on variety shows decades ago. Yes, we used to huddle around "Ed Sullivan" on Sunday nights, but that was just to see the Beatles, it was an interminable wait to get to the musical acts, and although we can remember Topo Gigio, we would have rather just seen the five minutes we were interested in. Which is what we have today, hallelujah!
But those on the selling side hate this. Listen to my album! Yeah, back when music was scarce and albums expensive you'd get free product and take a chance. But in today's overwhelming world you've got to deserve the time, you've got to weasel your way into the brain of the consumer and that's the hardest thing to do. But somehow in music we should lay down our defenses, give time to those who call themselves "artists."
And now I realize I'm going off the rails. But I keep getting e-mail saying I should support artists, that I should be positive. There's a whole industry for that, which will beef up your false hopes. End result? NOTHING! It's like giving a kid a trophy for competing. You don't expect to see that kid in the big leagues, he finds another line of work, only a very few can make it to the show. Ever been involved in athletics? You're always fearful of the cut. Your name is not on the list. Even in the NFL. But in music everybody should play?
I guess they do, because these are the people voting for the Grammy awards. The public is smarter than that. The public can see through the ruse. The public knows to ignore the Grammy anointments, because one false move can undercut the credibility of the entire operation.
I'll close with a story told to me by Tony Wilson, a name well-known in Britain but not in America. Tony was an Oxbridge educated man who was a TV presenter and a record company ruler. He was the majordomo of Factory Records, in Manchester, the epicenter of dance music. They even made a movie about him, "24 Hour Party People," watch it, it's very good.
But forget the bio. Before he got involved in the music scene, not long after school, Tony was the weekend news presenter for ITV. Tony says that a researcher gave him inaccurate football scores, whatever the case, Tony went on TV and delivered inaccurate sports scores. The next morning his boss came in and was this close to firing him, and after giving Tony another opportunity he said "If we can't get it right on the sports scores, people won't trust us on the big issues."
Bingo. That's what the Album of the Year award to Jon Batiste represents.
Case closed.
(However, the Grammys will self-congratulate and nothing will change. Old boy networks never die, they just fade into the sunset until no one can see them anymore.)
At least the Grammys are smart enough to get an outsider, as opposed to the Oscars, which constantly use someone from their industry with ties to the past and no skill putting on a TV show. But Ben Winston can't control the voting.
Everyone agrees that last night's Grammy telecast was a vast improvement over those of the previous decade plus. First and foremost it was decided to wipe the detritus of the past and focus on the new. But that just made it more confusing for the aged Grammy viewers unfamiliar with the acts and their music, as for the youngsters, who in hell could sit through all those commercials? I guess they're going to run this paradigm into the ground. In a world where you can do your best to never see a TV commercial to watch the Grammys in real time is torture.
Not that I watched much.
I wasn't going to watch any at all. But my friends had it on and I watched forty minutes, a good chunk of which was commercials, and the final ten minutes, wanting to say good night to said friends.
And I won't give a whole review of the show, the little I saw or that which I read about, because I really don't care. There's a whole publicity industry built around these awards shows and I'd like to know who eats up this information. Hype does not pay the dividends it used to. And as far as reviews, if you saw it you don't need to read about it, and those who didn't see it don't care.
As for a memorable moment, I haven't heard about one yet.
But what gets me to put fingers to keyboard is the Jon Batiste victory for Album of the Year. It undercuts all credibility for the Grammys. The dude gave a great speech, talking about how competition in the arts is not a factor, but reaching those who need the music is, however...HOW IN THE HELL DID THIS GUY WIN?
It's not like the Oscars, lauding a good picture that no one has seen. It's out of touch members voting for their personal preferences, screw the rest of the world. And I wouldn't care, except the Grammys keep telling us how hip and on point they are, in bed with the labels to put on a happening TV show and then...
Yes, are the big Grammy awards for popular music, or are they an inside baseball affair for the voters?
Have you heard Batiste's album? I doubt it, it barely made a dent on the charts, and two songs have nine million streams on Spotify, but six of them don't even break seven figures (which is a million, for the math challenged). And don't think a million streams is much, a Top 50 song can easily do a million streams A DAY!
But it's hard for oldsters to comprehend the new metrics. A million used to be a lot. A million albums, wow, you're platinum! But the metric has changed from sales to plays and those who've lost in the process, because their music is not listened to that much, can't stop complaining. It is commerce, not art. It is a business, it's not a charity. And if you don't put up the numbers you make less. However, in today's internet world there are many possible streams of revenue, but chances are if you have low streams you have little business elsewhere. Why does everybody continue to believe they deserve to be monetarily successful in the arts? Study the bands from the heyday of the classic rock era, in many cases they didn't give up their day jobs until after their first tour after their album was a hit. But today, if you decide you're an artist, you believe you deserve to be able to make a living by only playing your music. Insane. Then again, in today's world no one can handle the truth. In a world where truth is fungible anyway. Conventional wisdom is Spotify is the devil stealing from artists and Ticketmaster keeps all the fees and the artists have been screwed. Today it's all about emotions, feel, and that does not mean truth, no way, and it's not only in music.
So, by awarding Jon Batiste the big trophy, the Grammys have undercut their credibility.
Credibility. That used to be key before it all became about money. Yes, Reagan legitimized greed, the boomers sold out and ever since it's been about the gross. And the oldsters in control of the levers of power keep telling us young people don't care about sponsorships or endorsements when the truth is they just want their percentage thereof. Credibility as a concept never dies, it's just that few people embrace it. We are looking for credibility, especially in the arts, where honesty prevails, a cousin of credibility. Sans credibility you've got disposability, like so much of today's music, just like the Grammy telecast itself. One great credible thing can survive the ages, trump a ton of hype and endorsement, but it's hard to deliver honesty from the heart and stand up to the man, the system.
The system. I saw Harvey Mason Jr.'s speech. At least they pre-taped it, so there would be no faux pas. And the roundup of musicians saying they were the Academy was well done. But then you give the big award to Jon Batiste? It makes me think the Academy is made up of the people testifying who've never made it, and probably never will. The Motion Picture Academy is exclusive, not anybody can join, they still haven't let Rob Schneider in. But the majority of the Recording Academy is people who've never had a hit, who've never had commercial success, and that's fine, but should they be voting for consumer-facing awards?
Of course not.
The public is led to believe these are the best records out there. They know there are vagaries in the system, but when something totally left field wins a big award, they scratch their heads and move on.
Which is exactly what is happening to the baby boomers. Once again, give Ben Winston credit for breaking with the classic rock past. But the business is still run by boomers, and they've got to go. Gen-X'ers too. Everybody who remembers music before the internet is tied to a paradigm that no longer exists. Metrics that no longer make sense.
Which comes down to the Grammy telecast itself. A variety show? Network TV will air anything that garners eyeballs, and they gave up on variety shows decades ago. Yes, we used to huddle around "Ed Sullivan" on Sunday nights, but that was just to see the Beatles, it was an interminable wait to get to the musical acts, and although we can remember Topo Gigio, we would have rather just seen the five minutes we were interested in. Which is what we have today, hallelujah!
But those on the selling side hate this. Listen to my album! Yeah, back when music was scarce and albums expensive you'd get free product and take a chance. But in today's overwhelming world you've got to deserve the time, you've got to weasel your way into the brain of the consumer and that's the hardest thing to do. But somehow in music we should lay down our defenses, give time to those who call themselves "artists."
And now I realize I'm going off the rails. But I keep getting e-mail saying I should support artists, that I should be positive. There's a whole industry for that, which will beef up your false hopes. End result? NOTHING! It's like giving a kid a trophy for competing. You don't expect to see that kid in the big leagues, he finds another line of work, only a very few can make it to the show. Ever been involved in athletics? You're always fearful of the cut. Your name is not on the list. Even in the NFL. But in music everybody should play?
I guess they do, because these are the people voting for the Grammy awards. The public is smarter than that. The public can see through the ruse. The public knows to ignore the Grammy anointments, because one false move can undercut the credibility of the entire operation.
I'll close with a story told to me by Tony Wilson, a name well-known in Britain but not in America. Tony was an Oxbridge educated man who was a TV presenter and a record company ruler. He was the majordomo of Factory Records, in Manchester, the epicenter of dance music. They even made a movie about him, "24 Hour Party People," watch it, it's very good.
But forget the bio. Before he got involved in the music scene, not long after school, Tony was the weekend news presenter for ITV. Tony says that a researcher gave him inaccurate football scores, whatever the case, Tony went on TV and delivered inaccurate sports scores. The next morning his boss came in and was this close to firing him, and after giving Tony another opportunity he said "If we can't get it right on the sports scores, people won't trust us on the big issues."
Bingo. That's what the Album of the Year award to Jon Batiste represents.
Case closed.
(However, the Grammys will self-congratulate and nothing will change. Old boy networks never die, they just fade into the sunset until no one can see them anymore.)
--
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, 3 April 2022
The Slap
I saw it.
My inbox is inundated with punters laughing at and criticizing me, if only I'd watched the Oscars, I would have seen the slap.
But right after it happened I got a text. And then an e-mail with the uncensored Japanese clip. So in fact I was more up to speed than those watching the telecast, their version was censored, I got the full effect.
In other words, today you don't miss anything. And this is hard for oldsters to fathom and others want that badge of honor, of paying their dues, of being there. But that doesn't mean much anymore.
I mean if you want to watch a sporting event... Sure, you can miss out on the action. But anything else? If you really care you can DVR it, but one thing's for sure, if anything happens you'll be able to watch it ad infinitum indefinitely. As for the surprise? It was still surprising when I found out. As for the meaning?
That's another thing people are e-mailing me about, my take. But my take doesn't matter. Nobody's take does.
This is how it works. The Academy does its best to evade responsibility. And pushes into the future any change. I mean coming out days later saying they told Will Smith to leave? Why wasn't that in the initial press release? Makes it hard to believe, seems like a cover-up.
As for Will Smith, he resigned from the Academy, which ain't much of a loss, and there's no reason he can't get back in. He apologized, which is what public figures do when they commit a faux pas.
The public? Has been whipsawed. First reaction was positive, a man defending his wife, we need more testosterone, like Zelensky. And then as the days went by conventional wisdom flipped. Smith was guilty, it was heinous behavior. He must be punished, to set a precedent, so this can never happen again.
Now this isn't Trump signaling his troops by saying there are good people on both sides. This is one actor who lost control. Which begs the question whether anybody can be forgiven today. I mean I wouldn't jump on stage and slap someone, but I don't come from the same background as Smith, and I'm willing to give him a pass.
This is what is wrong with America, the one strike and you're out policy, the gotcha game. You cannot touch the third rail and survive. And it seems like the third rail is always nearby. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but am I willing to tar Smith's reputation for all time? No. Because I'd like to be forgiven if I cross the line. People freak out and do crazy things.
But now you might be thinking I'm endorsing Smith's behavior, but I'm not. The best analysis of the slap was given by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:
"Will Smith Did a Bad, Bad Thing - Slapping Chris Rock was also a blow to men, women, the entertainment industry and the Black community.": https://bit.ly/3K555lC
Once again, the sideshow has become the main show. The hoi polloi focus on the micro while those who truly run this country are above the fray, do not pay attention and commit their crimes willy-nilly. The slap sells ads, for papers and TV stations. It gives people something to talk about. It will be remembered, but how about who won? I bet you can't name most of the winners only a week out.
The only person who played the game right here is Chris Rock. You don't respond. Chris is smarter than politicians and seemingly every public figure. If you're in a Twitter war you've already lost the plot. Stay above the fray, let the haters have their way, if you respond you will only look bad, which is exactly what they want. By not pressing charges and moving on Rock represents the twenty first century ideal. If you get caught up in the craziness you can never win.
But here I am responding to readers.
But I really just want to make the point that no one misses anything today. If anything good happens on the Grammy telecast you'll find out immediately and be able to view it just as fast. And you won't have to waste three plus hours to do so.
Time. Even babies are scheduled. There are so many opportunities, so much I want to do. The entertainment industry still acts like scarcity rules, when that hasn't been the case for two decades. You accept that you cannot reach everybody, you superserve your core audience and forget about everybody else. And if you're lucky, you might have a viral moment, but those are rare, you can try to manipulate them but surfers are savvy these days.
And if the Grammys were a business someone would be fired. And if you put in a placeholder you're doomed. This is what happened to Apple, it was going into the toilet, until Steve Jobs came back, revolutionized the software and simplified the product lineup. Then again, Steve Jobs was not only a brilliant businessman, he was more of an artist than anybody taking the stage tonight. Did you see that Scott Galloway quote?
"Hollywood used to be the cultural center of the universe. It's fallen to a close second behind the tech community. The two have a lot in common: Both mix fame and money to create a brazen lack of grace and self-awareness."
That's all you need to know.
--
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
My inbox is inundated with punters laughing at and criticizing me, if only I'd watched the Oscars, I would have seen the slap.
But right after it happened I got a text. And then an e-mail with the uncensored Japanese clip. So in fact I was more up to speed than those watching the telecast, their version was censored, I got the full effect.
In other words, today you don't miss anything. And this is hard for oldsters to fathom and others want that badge of honor, of paying their dues, of being there. But that doesn't mean much anymore.
I mean if you want to watch a sporting event... Sure, you can miss out on the action. But anything else? If you really care you can DVR it, but one thing's for sure, if anything happens you'll be able to watch it ad infinitum indefinitely. As for the surprise? It was still surprising when I found out. As for the meaning?
That's another thing people are e-mailing me about, my take. But my take doesn't matter. Nobody's take does.
This is how it works. The Academy does its best to evade responsibility. And pushes into the future any change. I mean coming out days later saying they told Will Smith to leave? Why wasn't that in the initial press release? Makes it hard to believe, seems like a cover-up.
As for Will Smith, he resigned from the Academy, which ain't much of a loss, and there's no reason he can't get back in. He apologized, which is what public figures do when they commit a faux pas.
The public? Has been whipsawed. First reaction was positive, a man defending his wife, we need more testosterone, like Zelensky. And then as the days went by conventional wisdom flipped. Smith was guilty, it was heinous behavior. He must be punished, to set a precedent, so this can never happen again.
Now this isn't Trump signaling his troops by saying there are good people on both sides. This is one actor who lost control. Which begs the question whether anybody can be forgiven today. I mean I wouldn't jump on stage and slap someone, but I don't come from the same background as Smith, and I'm willing to give him a pass.
This is what is wrong with America, the one strike and you're out policy, the gotcha game. You cannot touch the third rail and survive. And it seems like the third rail is always nearby. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but am I willing to tar Smith's reputation for all time? No. Because I'd like to be forgiven if I cross the line. People freak out and do crazy things.
But now you might be thinking I'm endorsing Smith's behavior, but I'm not. The best analysis of the slap was given by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:
"Will Smith Did a Bad, Bad Thing - Slapping Chris Rock was also a blow to men, women, the entertainment industry and the Black community.": https://bit.ly/3K555lC
Once again, the sideshow has become the main show. The hoi polloi focus on the micro while those who truly run this country are above the fray, do not pay attention and commit their crimes willy-nilly. The slap sells ads, for papers and TV stations. It gives people something to talk about. It will be remembered, but how about who won? I bet you can't name most of the winners only a week out.
The only person who played the game right here is Chris Rock. You don't respond. Chris is smarter than politicians and seemingly every public figure. If you're in a Twitter war you've already lost the plot. Stay above the fray, let the haters have their way, if you respond you will only look bad, which is exactly what they want. By not pressing charges and moving on Rock represents the twenty first century ideal. If you get caught up in the craziness you can never win.
But here I am responding to readers.
But I really just want to make the point that no one misses anything today. If anything good happens on the Grammy telecast you'll find out immediately and be able to view it just as fast. And you won't have to waste three plus hours to do so.
Time. Even babies are scheduled. There are so many opportunities, so much I want to do. The entertainment industry still acts like scarcity rules, when that hasn't been the case for two decades. You accept that you cannot reach everybody, you superserve your core audience and forget about everybody else. And if you're lucky, you might have a viral moment, but those are rare, you can try to manipulate them but surfers are savvy these days.
And if the Grammys were a business someone would be fired. And if you put in a placeholder you're doomed. This is what happened to Apple, it was going into the toilet, until Steve Jobs came back, revolutionized the software and simplified the product lineup. Then again, Steve Jobs was not only a brilliant businessman, he was more of an artist than anybody taking the stage tonight. Did you see that Scott Galloway quote?
"Hollywood used to be the cultural center of the universe. It's fallen to a close second behind the tech community. The two have a lot in common: Both mix fame and money to create a brazen lack of grace and self-awareness."
That's all you need to know.
--
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
The Grammys
It'll probably be a good show. But does that mean you have to watch it?
Last year Ben Winston threw out Ken Ehrlich's "Grammy Moment" playbook and created an intimate affair that seemed to live in the present as opposed to the past. But that does not mean the show will reflect people's tastes.
Prior to the MTV era the Grammys were a sideshow. They didn't know how to get it right. If you were a true music fan it was a badge of honor not to watch the Grammys. At that time your fandom was a badge of honor. You wore the shirt of the obscure act, you didn't want to be seen as a me-too follower. But AOR radio consolidated its playlists, corporate rock reared its ugly head and the record business imploded, only to be rescued by MTV. Yes, there was a disco component, but it's best to say dance music has always existed and still exists, and the frat boy whites just couldn't handle the change, even though dance music is a staple of that same cadre today.
So the eighties were an era of consolidation, of a monoculture. The independent FM stations...suddenly were taking their playlists from MTV. The tail was wagging the dog. Suddenly all of America was on the same page, the entire world was on the same page. The Police blew up on MTV and then toured the world, where there was demand. This was new, as were the amounts of money thrown off by overpriced CDs. This was long before the CDs only contained one good track. Albums were still short. Sure, there was filler, but it was still about the complete project.
And then in the nineties labels got greedy. AOL discs were free, but CDs were still expensive. Oftentimes the CD only had one good track, but if there was a single, it was cut out as soon as the song got traction. The business was profiting, but the customers were angry. The internet ethos had not yet taken hold. Which is one in which you follow the customers, give them what they want, let them participate, or else your business is decimated. True seers give the public what it doesn't even know it wants, like Steve Jobs with the iPod, and Daniel Ek with Spotify, but these disrupters are rarely in control of the industries that are affected. Even though Clayton Christensen said you must disrupt yourself, few companies are willing to do this. As a matter of fact, it's only tech companies who seem to push the envelope, record companies have a constant stream of income from legacy product, and the goal of being a label president is to make bank, especially now, when the role has almost zero gravitas.
So, Napster came along and blew a hole in the record business. Which complained, and kept to its playbook until streaming came aboard. Then it was those looking to the future, most especially the hip-hop artists, unconstrained by prior restrictions, who could record at a minimum cost and oftentimes delivered their music for free, who gained hold and started to dominate.
The labels shrunk their staffs. Came to bat much less frequently. Wanted giant hits. Remind you of the movie business? Exactly. The movies lost their power to television. And the labels...lost their power to a zillion different acts. The record companies would swoop down and swallow the cream, like Lil Nas X, but the rest of the world's recorded output they wanted nothing to do with, but that's where the public's interest lies, assuming the public is interested at all.
We haven't had a record that woke everybody up and made people pay attention in years. Don't talk about Adele, that was promotion of a preexisting product. As for Silk Sonic... Like "Blurred Lines" it's got the feel right, it hearkens back to the past, but the songs are so substandard as to hook almost no one. This is the world we live in today, where no one involved is willing to say a negative word. Whereas criticism ruled prior to MTV, you'd argue about acts. Now everybody just parties 24/7 and shoots selfies and posts them on social media.
Yes, the cutting edge is TikTok, I'd rather watch a three hour exposé of that than a smorgasbord of acts that are far from universal, most of which don't appeal to me. Yes, they've got Billy Strings, but that's tokenism. And, once again, Strings lacks the hit material necessary to reach a larger audience. And Chris Stapleton, who does it differently from everybody else in Nashville, yet is the most beloved act in Music City, and successful to boot. Stapleton went back to the garden, not retro, but influenced by the past, and delivered an authentic sound that resonated, and far beyond the country base. You'd think that would be a beacon, but so far no one of significance has followed in his footsteps. It seems everyone wants to be famous for the trappings as opposed to the essence. They want to be famous. As for the rabid fans of some acts...it's like the Sharks vs. the Jets, a sideshow only interesting to those involved.
So what we have here is an industry that has lost its hold on the national consciousness. However, live events are burgeoning. Festivals are must-go-to events, and sure they're based around headliners, but the undercards sustain them, where is the undercard on the Grammy telecast?
Nowhere.
Yes, we are returning to the pre-MTV days. It's the unheralded that people adhere to and follow. They find out about these acts organically and then tell all their friends about them. It's no longer a top-down culture, but a bottom-up one. And by trying to be universal the Grammys are missing the point. There is no universal anymore. Used to be everyone knew the performers, I guarantee you a large portion of those watching tonight will be unfamiliar with the acts, and this was unheard of in the Grammy heyday from the late eighties into the beginnings of the twenty first century. Music can cross languages and borders, but there's not enough music that does this, except for Latin, which used to be ignored by the suits, but now is embraced by the audience. The internet set Latin music free. And I doubt most Latin music fans would be thrilled by the Grammy lineup.
Yes, we've gone niche. And the Grammys are broad. Made to play to everyone. Which is why network TV has lost its audience, people went to that which was more vibrant, first on cable and now on streaming. And every once in a while there's a streaming phenomenon, like "Squid Game." We haven't had one of those in music in years. Because there's nothing so innovative, so out there, yet so right, that everyone needs to talk about it and discuss it. And still, there are people who haven't seen "Squid Game." Because the universal is passé.
Now I'm talking about the Grammy telecast. Not the organization and its multitude of awards. It's a circle jerk of musicians who believe they should be rewarded for their work, even though only their peers are aware of it in most cases. Awards never worked in music, because the best stuff is ahead of the voters, they only catch up after the fact, which is the way it should be. Go on YouTube, find the endless news reports making fun of the internet, didn't they miss the point.
So if you don't watch the Grammys, you won't miss anything. You'll see a show constructed to appeal to all tastes when the truth is active fans have no desire to see it. Music is on demand now. Talk to a youngster, if you say they listen to terrestrial radio you're lying. No way, they don't want to sit through commercials and they don't want to be spoon-fed what they don't like to get to one or two tracks they do, which is exactly what the Grammy telecast proffers.
But it completely misses the point that we no longer live in one big tent. Maybe if the show was comprised only of up and coming acts. Maybe if it didn't try to be a roundup, but just an exhibition, a learning experience. If only it wasn't self-congratulatory, but more of an adventure. No one has to watch the Grammy telecast anymore, they have umpteen options, they can cater their life to their whims, their desires. This is what the oldsters don't get about smartphones, they're genius, they're the best thing that ever happened, you have the world you want to experience at your fingertips, and guaranteed it's not the one anybody else has at their fingertips. You customize your world. And it's only the old wankers who complain about this. They want you corralled into their world, the Grammys, when you've given that up long ago.
Music is gaining health because the mainstream push continues to lose audience share. People are sick of holier-than-thou nitwit artists. Come on, you're feuding online, you're looking for endorsements, what is there to believe in? Why should the audience take the music seriously when the performer does not? Want an interesting TV show with legs? Break down the income of every performer, from records, live, endorsements. That, people are interested in, that they'll talk about, whereas this three hour extravaganza will be forgotten right after it happens. Oh, the straight media will write about it, but especially when it comes to the arts, straight media has never meant less.
So expect reams of publicity after the fact. Expect the involved or brain dead to talk about it. But really, it's become a badge of honor not to perform at the Grammys, not to be involved. Artists are unique, they don't scramble for awards. They're the anti. And the public propping up music knows this. They're listening to and going to see acts far from the Grammy mainstream, they're passionate about them, they are living in the future while the Grammys are living in the past.
If you're watching the Grammys to be educated, the joke is on you. Today you must be active, not passive, you must fine your own desires, just like on social media, you must get involved to gain the full experience.
If you're watching the Grammys for business reasons... You're missing the point. The big is no longer so big, and that which is promoted is too often hollow at the center. Yes, you can pull the wool over the eyes of the young, but the older you get the less you want to be a lemming, you kick the tires, decide if something is worthwhile before you dedicate time to it, since time is your most precious commodity.
So the Grammys are a TV show and an organization out of touch with the times. Old farts who don't want to lose control.
But they already have.
Last year Ben Winston threw out Ken Ehrlich's "Grammy Moment" playbook and created an intimate affair that seemed to live in the present as opposed to the past. But that does not mean the show will reflect people's tastes.
Prior to the MTV era the Grammys were a sideshow. They didn't know how to get it right. If you were a true music fan it was a badge of honor not to watch the Grammys. At that time your fandom was a badge of honor. You wore the shirt of the obscure act, you didn't want to be seen as a me-too follower. But AOR radio consolidated its playlists, corporate rock reared its ugly head and the record business imploded, only to be rescued by MTV. Yes, there was a disco component, but it's best to say dance music has always existed and still exists, and the frat boy whites just couldn't handle the change, even though dance music is a staple of that same cadre today.
So the eighties were an era of consolidation, of a monoculture. The independent FM stations...suddenly were taking their playlists from MTV. The tail was wagging the dog. Suddenly all of America was on the same page, the entire world was on the same page. The Police blew up on MTV and then toured the world, where there was demand. This was new, as were the amounts of money thrown off by overpriced CDs. This was long before the CDs only contained one good track. Albums were still short. Sure, there was filler, but it was still about the complete project.
And then in the nineties labels got greedy. AOL discs were free, but CDs were still expensive. Oftentimes the CD only had one good track, but if there was a single, it was cut out as soon as the song got traction. The business was profiting, but the customers were angry. The internet ethos had not yet taken hold. Which is one in which you follow the customers, give them what they want, let them participate, or else your business is decimated. True seers give the public what it doesn't even know it wants, like Steve Jobs with the iPod, and Daniel Ek with Spotify, but these disrupters are rarely in control of the industries that are affected. Even though Clayton Christensen said you must disrupt yourself, few companies are willing to do this. As a matter of fact, it's only tech companies who seem to push the envelope, record companies have a constant stream of income from legacy product, and the goal of being a label president is to make bank, especially now, when the role has almost zero gravitas.
So, Napster came along and blew a hole in the record business. Which complained, and kept to its playbook until streaming came aboard. Then it was those looking to the future, most especially the hip-hop artists, unconstrained by prior restrictions, who could record at a minimum cost and oftentimes delivered their music for free, who gained hold and started to dominate.
The labels shrunk their staffs. Came to bat much less frequently. Wanted giant hits. Remind you of the movie business? Exactly. The movies lost their power to television. And the labels...lost their power to a zillion different acts. The record companies would swoop down and swallow the cream, like Lil Nas X, but the rest of the world's recorded output they wanted nothing to do with, but that's where the public's interest lies, assuming the public is interested at all.
We haven't had a record that woke everybody up and made people pay attention in years. Don't talk about Adele, that was promotion of a preexisting product. As for Silk Sonic... Like "Blurred Lines" it's got the feel right, it hearkens back to the past, but the songs are so substandard as to hook almost no one. This is the world we live in today, where no one involved is willing to say a negative word. Whereas criticism ruled prior to MTV, you'd argue about acts. Now everybody just parties 24/7 and shoots selfies and posts them on social media.
Yes, the cutting edge is TikTok, I'd rather watch a three hour exposé of that than a smorgasbord of acts that are far from universal, most of which don't appeal to me. Yes, they've got Billy Strings, but that's tokenism. And, once again, Strings lacks the hit material necessary to reach a larger audience. And Chris Stapleton, who does it differently from everybody else in Nashville, yet is the most beloved act in Music City, and successful to boot. Stapleton went back to the garden, not retro, but influenced by the past, and delivered an authentic sound that resonated, and far beyond the country base. You'd think that would be a beacon, but so far no one of significance has followed in his footsteps. It seems everyone wants to be famous for the trappings as opposed to the essence. They want to be famous. As for the rabid fans of some acts...it's like the Sharks vs. the Jets, a sideshow only interesting to those involved.
So what we have here is an industry that has lost its hold on the national consciousness. However, live events are burgeoning. Festivals are must-go-to events, and sure they're based around headliners, but the undercards sustain them, where is the undercard on the Grammy telecast?
Nowhere.
Yes, we are returning to the pre-MTV days. It's the unheralded that people adhere to and follow. They find out about these acts organically and then tell all their friends about them. It's no longer a top-down culture, but a bottom-up one. And by trying to be universal the Grammys are missing the point. There is no universal anymore. Used to be everyone knew the performers, I guarantee you a large portion of those watching tonight will be unfamiliar with the acts, and this was unheard of in the Grammy heyday from the late eighties into the beginnings of the twenty first century. Music can cross languages and borders, but there's not enough music that does this, except for Latin, which used to be ignored by the suits, but now is embraced by the audience. The internet set Latin music free. And I doubt most Latin music fans would be thrilled by the Grammy lineup.
Yes, we've gone niche. And the Grammys are broad. Made to play to everyone. Which is why network TV has lost its audience, people went to that which was more vibrant, first on cable and now on streaming. And every once in a while there's a streaming phenomenon, like "Squid Game." We haven't had one of those in music in years. Because there's nothing so innovative, so out there, yet so right, that everyone needs to talk about it and discuss it. And still, there are people who haven't seen "Squid Game." Because the universal is passé.
Now I'm talking about the Grammy telecast. Not the organization and its multitude of awards. It's a circle jerk of musicians who believe they should be rewarded for their work, even though only their peers are aware of it in most cases. Awards never worked in music, because the best stuff is ahead of the voters, they only catch up after the fact, which is the way it should be. Go on YouTube, find the endless news reports making fun of the internet, didn't they miss the point.
So if you don't watch the Grammys, you won't miss anything. You'll see a show constructed to appeal to all tastes when the truth is active fans have no desire to see it. Music is on demand now. Talk to a youngster, if you say they listen to terrestrial radio you're lying. No way, they don't want to sit through commercials and they don't want to be spoon-fed what they don't like to get to one or two tracks they do, which is exactly what the Grammy telecast proffers.
But it completely misses the point that we no longer live in one big tent. Maybe if the show was comprised only of up and coming acts. Maybe if it didn't try to be a roundup, but just an exhibition, a learning experience. If only it wasn't self-congratulatory, but more of an adventure. No one has to watch the Grammy telecast anymore, they have umpteen options, they can cater their life to their whims, their desires. This is what the oldsters don't get about smartphones, they're genius, they're the best thing that ever happened, you have the world you want to experience at your fingertips, and guaranteed it's not the one anybody else has at their fingertips. You customize your world. And it's only the old wankers who complain about this. They want you corralled into their world, the Grammys, when you've given that up long ago.
Music is gaining health because the mainstream push continues to lose audience share. People are sick of holier-than-thou nitwit artists. Come on, you're feuding online, you're looking for endorsements, what is there to believe in? Why should the audience take the music seriously when the performer does not? Want an interesting TV show with legs? Break down the income of every performer, from records, live, endorsements. That, people are interested in, that they'll talk about, whereas this three hour extravaganza will be forgotten right after it happens. Oh, the straight media will write about it, but especially when it comes to the arts, straight media has never meant less.
So expect reams of publicity after the fact. Expect the involved or brain dead to talk about it. But really, it's become a badge of honor not to perform at the Grammys, not to be involved. Artists are unique, they don't scramble for awards. They're the anti. And the public propping up music knows this. They're listening to and going to see acts far from the Grammy mainstream, they're passionate about them, they are living in the future while the Grammys are living in the past.
If you're watching the Grammys to be educated, the joke is on you. Today you must be active, not passive, you must fine your own desires, just like on social media, you must get involved to gain the full experience.
If you're watching the Grammys for business reasons... You're missing the point. The big is no longer so big, and that which is promoted is too often hollow at the center. Yes, you can pull the wool over the eyes of the young, but the older you get the less you want to be a lemming, you kick the tires, decide if something is worthwhile before you dedicate time to it, since time is your most precious commodity.
So the Grammys are a TV show and an organization out of touch with the times. Old farts who don't want to lose control.
But they already have.
--
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)