Showing posts with label ROLLING STONE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ROLLING STONE. Show all posts

Friday, October 3, 2025

The greatest five star rating of an undeserving album by ROLLING STONE.

 No, it’s not the one for Taylor Swift’s THE LIFE OF A SHOWGIRL (which I streamed most of), written by Taylor superfan Maya Georgi.  Not linking to it here, but the tone is essentially Taylor Swift is the greatest and I love everything of hers forever and always.


Here’s schmitt, from his list of 500 worst ROLLING STONE album reviews, discussing Parke Puterbaugh’s enthusiastic overvaluation of The Who’s underwhelming (Roger Daltrey famously disliked it) 1982 album IT’S HARD, which, apparently, Jann Wenner must have determined unpannable since The Who were in the midst of what was envisioned as their this-is-it farewell tour:

Rating: 5 Stars
"It figures. Just when the Who had ceased to matter much – the band members having channeled a lot of their power and volatility and commitment into solo careers, employing the Who chiefly as a vehicle to take a greatest-hits revue on the road – it figures that they'd make their most vital and coherent album since Who's Next. It's fitting that It's Hard is a great record because, given the inverted world of Pete Townshend's mind, it's what you were least expecting." (Parke Puterbaugh, 9/30/82 Review)


The Who formed in London in 1964. The band featured Pete Townshend on guitar, Roger Daltrey on vocals, John Entwistle on bass, and Keith Moon on drums. For the next fourteen years, this lineup didn't change.

The band was notorious for their raucous behavior and in-fighting that was even rumored to have become physical at times. Yet each of the four members were insistent that if any of them were to leave the group, the Who would cease to exist. "I don't think it would carry on," Keith Moon told Melody Maker's Chris Charlesworth in the 4/22/72 issue. "It would naturally fall apart."

Pete Townshend, the Who's principal songwriter, agreed. "[W]e're lucky to be together today, to be the same four blokes we always were," he remarked to Dave Schulps in the April '78 issue of Trouser Press. "Because when you've known and worked with four people for 15 years, in the end you've got a power no one else can get unless they wait 15 years."

Yet to many observers, by 1978 Townshend's famous adage "hope I die before I get old" was really beginning to seem like an albatross for the group. Townshend himself announced upon the release of the band's eighth album, Who Are You, that he was done touring with the Who. "[T]he Who now seem to consider themselves tired and old," Ira Robbins observed in a 1978 issue of Crawdaddy!. "Who Are You is a tired and old album, one that scarcely does them justice."

On September 7, 1978, Keith Moon died from an overdose of Hemineverin, a drug prescribed to him to treat symptoms associated with alcohol withdrawal. He was thirty-two years old. 

One might have thought that this event would have been the impetus for the Who to finally disband after years of decline, but oddly enough, it had precisely the opposite effect. Indeed, Townshend now professed a renewed interest in the Who. "Ironically, Keith's passing was a positive thing," he told Chris Welch in a 1/27/79 interview with Melody Maker. "I feel now there is a tremendous open door and I feel very excited about the fact the Who is a well-established band with a tremendous history, but suddenly we're in the middle of nowhere – a new band. I'm really excited about it."

Towshend later described his reaction to Moon's death as "immediate and completely irrational, bordering on insane" in his 2012 autobiography, Who I Am. Roger Daltrey concurred in a 1994 interview with Goldmine. "Keith was such an extraordinary drummer, to try and replace him was just ridiculous," he said.

If Moon's passing had briefly rejuvenated Townshend's flagging interest in the band, the effect seems to have largely dissipated by their next LP, 1981's Face Dances. By this time, Townshend seemed destined to follow Moon to an early grave, having descended into an abyss of alcoholism and drug addiction. Townshend was in rehab when the band started work on their tenth album, It's Hard. "In my absence, The Who had started recording at Glyn Johns's new studio in the country, with Andy Fairweather Low standing in on guitar," Townshend recalled in his autobiography. "I felt pressure to jump off the plane from rehab and join them directly, [but] it wasn't until 3 March that I drove down to meet everyone."

"Much had been said in the press about what I had or hadn't delivered to The Who as its major songwriter, but I wanted a brief from them, some guidance," he continued. "My head was empty."

The guidance Townshend sought was not forthcoming. Daltrey and Kenney Jones, Moon's replacement, advised they wanted to perform songs about "the important issues of the day", an idea Townshend dismissed as crazy. It is little surprise, then, that the results of these sessions were nothing short of disastrous. Roger Daltrey, in particular, was unsatisfied with the album. "When Roger heard the final mixes he wanted to hold it back, because to his ear it didn't really feel finished," Townshend said. "But with the tour closing in on us we were running out of time, and I persuaded him to let it stand."

Townshend made the rounds upon the record's release, assuring the press that the band had been completely revitalized in the process of making It's Hard. "Recording has rejuventated us," he told Chris Salewicz in the November '82 issue of Creem. "Not so much in musical terms, but in the sense of standing together and saying that we're prepared to actually change the way that we live, and the way that we operate, if it will make a difference. The new Who songs are violently aggressive, the most aggressive stuff we've ever come up with. The songs that I've written are totally preoccupied with the danger and tension of living in the 80's. And that is the common attitude and stance that the band has."

"It’s Hard should never have been released," Daltrey retorted in 1994. "Pete had just come off detox and he was really looking for help. We did It’s Hard in the studio and the band was rehearsing before Pete got out of the clinic just to try and keep a vibe up, to try and support Pete. But when the album was finished and I heard it I said, 'Pete, this is just a complete piece of shit and it should never come out!'"

"I hated it," he continued. "I still hate it. Hate it, hate it, hate it!"

Mick Farren panned this album in his October '82 review for The Village Voice. "Townshend's alternating need to know (remember 'The Seeker') and need to confess, Entwistle's seeming distaste for all the trappings of stardom, and the general erosion of age seems to have produced a standardized late-model Who song that's long, wordy, medium-paced, based on an over-extended guitar or synthesizer figure, and lacking in both hooks and genuine power," he wrote. "I fear that It's Hard – and it's a terrible thing to find yourself saying about the Who – sounds like an album that was made because it had to be, with little to offer bar sluggish, warmed-over riffs and midlife angst."

Meanwhile, Parke Puterbaugh gave the album a five-star "classic" rating in Rolling Stone, describing it as the band's best effort in more than a decade.

In later years, many critics were unsparing in their assessment of It's Hard, which was widely regarded as an unmitigated failure. "This record should never have been released," Steven Rosen wrote in 2007, echoing Daltrey. "It is ur-Who, a particularly nasty strain of music that bears only a marginal similarity to the original band. And if money had never been a part of the equation before this, it did pose its ugly snout here. The album represented one of three records contracted to the Warner Bros. label. Everything that plagued Face Dances infects this one: poor production, half-hearted performances, and sickly songs. Townshend had been hoarding all the notable tracks for his own interests, and thus, his own solo records of the time are far better representations of the recorded works."

Mark Kemp rated It's Hard two-and-a-half stars in the fourth edition of the album guide: "by the time of the aptly named It's Hard, the Who had lost all inspiration."

Saturday, September 16, 2023

Summing up Jann Wenner’s Boomer-centric racist/sexist comments.

David Marchese of THE NEW YORK TIMES got ROLLING STONE co-founder Jann Wenner to admit that there is no place for Black and female artists in the Wenner pantheon because of “articulation.”  So Joni Mitchell, Grace Slick, Janis Joplin, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Curtis Mayfield and Otis Redding were relegated to nevers or also-rans.

Regarding Jann Wenner’s criteria for Caucasian male rock star myth/legend status: there are people who want to be mythic and pursue validation by someone Important (Bono, Bruce Springsteen).  And then there’s Jann chasing already mythic Dylan, Lennon and Jagger with the hunger to be validated by them.  

And here’s Wenner’s part-apology, part don’t cause my book to be pulled statement:

In a statement issued late Saturday by a representative for Little, Brown and Company, the publisher of his book, Mr. Wenner said: “In my interview with The New York Times I made comments that diminished the contributions, genius and impact of Black and women artists and I apologize wholeheartedly for those remarks.

“‘The Masters’ is a collection of interviews I’ve done over the years,” he continued, “that seemed to me to best represent an idea of rock ’n’ roll’s impact on my world; they were not meant to represent the whole of music and its diverse and important originators but to reflect the high points of my career and interviews I felt illustrated the breadth and experience in that career. They don’t reflect my appreciation and admiration for myriad totemic, world-changing artists whose music and ideas I revere and will celebrate and promote as long as I live. I totally understand the inflammatory nature of badly chosen words and deeply apologize and accept the consequences.”

Monday, April 6, 2015

When ROLLING STONE grades/re-grades rock artists on a curve.

Links to various album reviews that have appeared in ROLLING STONE demonstrating the magazine's determination to "come through" for artists delivering albums that aren't universally acclaimed on original release.

First, founder Jann Wenner pre-emptively strikes critics of Bob Dylan's 1979 gospel album SLOW TRAIN COMING: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/slow-train-coming-19790920

Last year, David Fricke overrates Bruce Springsteen's grab-bag HIGH HOPES:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/high-hopes-20140106

Paul Nelson's lukewarm review of The Rolling Stones' SOME GIRLS:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/some-girls-19780810

The above is later reversed by Rob Sheffield's gooey, gushy five-star review of its reissued version:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/some-girls-deluxe-edition-20111121

Greil Marcus dismissing Bob Dylan's 1978 STREET-LEGAL:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/street-legal-19780824

Jann Wenner throwing Nelson and Marcus under the bus for not bowing to Greatness:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/love-in-vain-dylan-and-the-stones-in-the-seventies-19780921

Finishing with the all-time-classic miscue of Parke Puterbaugh giving The Who's IT'S HARD five stars in 1982: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/its-hard-19820930


Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Louis C.K. explains for me why I don't read THE HUFFINGTON POST like I used to.

I used to read Huffington Post, and I can't anymore, because it's all "Britney Spears' ass stuck out of her pants."  It's just mean.  There's so much meanness slung on people, people that are victims.  Everybody gets made fun of, the way they look, and we all just fucking yap and speculate with quote-unquote outrage, tragic sadness.  I don't think anybody's doing a great job with this stuff.--
Louis C.K. interviewed by Brian Hiatt in the current issue of ROLLING STONE.

Friday, February 1, 2013

Billy Joel says his old music is "juvenile"--giving inadvertent finger to longtime fans.

In 1982, Billy Joel took an artistic leap forward with the album THE NYLON CURTAIN.  As a result, he wanted to ensure he'd read good reviews from rock critics instead of bad ones.  So, around that time, a more-positive relationship was created between Billy and ROLLING STONE. 

Prior to that, Billy Joel received variable reviews from the biweekly publication.  Positive ones overall for THE STRANGER and 52ND STREET, but then the late Paul Nelson dinged him for 1980's GLASS HOUSES.  If memory is correct, Nelson wrote that Billy came off like "a drunken fratboy putting the make on an airline stewardess."

Anyway, Billy got good treatment from ROLLING STONE hereafter.  He retired from making pop/rock albums in 1993, but would occasionally tour.  And Sony/Columbia reshuffled Billy's existing song catalog to dribble out hits compilations, live albums, album reissues and one rarities-dominated box set to the fan base.

And for the past twenty years, Jann Wenner and ROLLING STONE have continued publishing Billy Joel stories, regardless of valid readership interest.

This week, there's another Billy Joel one-page puff interview in ROLLING STONE (the issue with the cover story on Rihanna--haven't read it yet but I'm assuming it tries to spin the Chris Brown re-relationship in a positive rather than pathetic victim-goes-back-to-victimizer way).  It avoids mentioning the 412th compilation (this time of love songs), but centers on good notices for Billy's participation in recent NY hurricane benefit shows.

And then Billy Joel proceeds to call his pre-retirement music "juvenile."

This longtime fan's blood pressure went up upon reading that passage.

The logic is: it's okay/financially and morally defensible to keep making money by having Sony repackage the old "juvenile" music, but Billy can't be bothered to, say, create a second "adult" classical album or even another Broadway show (remembering the Twyla Tharp dance concept show MOVIN' OUT from the previous decade).

Fine if he wants to be Charles Foster Kane shuffling in ultracomfort between Manhattan and Hamptons Xanadus.

But if Billy Joel wants nothing more to do with actively creating music for ears other than his own, then it should be time for him and Jann Wenner to can the solipsistic crap periodically appearing in ROLLING STONE.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

The Who's "The Seeker" and Bob Dylan's reaction to the song.

http://www.americansongwriter.com/2012/09/the-who-the-seeker/
[I first remember hearing the song on The Who's singles compilation album MEATY BEATY BIG AND BOUNCY.]

From Mikal Gilmore's interview with Bob Dylan in the current issue of ROLLING STONE [Gilmore's question addresses the post-motorcycle accident Dylan and the marked difference in his music from earlier in the 60s when "people saw you as a revolutionary fireball."]:
"Why is it that when people talk about me they have to go crazy?  What the fuck is the matter with them?  Sure, I had a motorcycle accident.  Sure, I played with the Band.  Yeah, I made a record called JOHN WESLEY HARDING.  And sure, I sounded different.  So fucking what?  They want to know what can't be known.  They are searching--they are seekers.  Like in the Pete Townshend song where he's trying to find his way to 50 million fables.  For what?  Why are they doing this?  They don't really know.  It's sad.  May the Lord have mercy on them.  They are lost souls.  They really don't know.  It's sad--it really is.  It's sad for me, and it's sad for them."

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Laura Nyro's son and this year's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ceremony.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerfriedman/2012/03/22/rock-hall-of-fame-wont-invite-laura-nyros-son-to-induction-ceremony/

In one of life's little ironies, this appeared on the website of FORBES magazine, which Bono has a part-ownership in (also keep in mind the handle-with-kid-gloves approach of ROLLING STONE to recent U2-related projects like the disappointing recent album NO LINE ON THE HORIZON and the SPIDER-MAN musical).

Roger Friedman, when formerly employed by Fox, was critical of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Curious to see how strong the editorial firewall at Forbes.com will be.

UPDATE 5/7/12: I'm in the process of watching the 2 1/2 hour HBO version of the 2012 ceremony and was happy to see that Nyro's son accepted her award after the heartfelt induction speech from Bette Midler. 

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Criticism--and the supersensitive/vindictive reaction to it--in rock and roll.

Recently, I read the late Paul Nelson's book of interviews with Clint Eastwood--CONVERSATIONS WITH CLINT.

Now, I'm onto EVERYTHING IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT: THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF PAUL NELSON (edited by Kevin Avery).

Some choice tidbits from the book:
Stephen Holden on artists who Jann Wenner considered sacred cows in ROLLING STONE:
"Jann would insist on positive reviews for his personal friends, including Boz Scaggs and Art Garfunkel, in particular, and Jimmy Webb.  They got lots of coverage and they always got positive reviews."

Paul Nelson's personal friendship with Jackson Browne (Browne's album THE PRETENDER was a Nelson favorite) came to an end when Nelson panned J.D. Souther's (Souther is now probably best known for songwriting--with hits for the Eagles and Linda Ronstadt--rather than his singing/recording career) album YOU'RE ONLY LONELY.

From the review:
"These days, J.D. Souther is mostly a parody of the sensitive California singer/songwriter.  He's calendar art, the aural equivalent of a Kodak color slide: leaves turning in the autumn as photographed by Felicia Filigree of Vassar.  He's so lazy that too often his songs have trouble holding even the most cliched poses, because their creator can't be bothered to supply the necessary conviction, much less any at all. 'If you don't want my love/Well, there's nothing I can do.' he mewls, sounding like he's mildly annoyed because his Perrier is getting warm."

Don Henley wrote an angry letter to ROLLING STONE (keep in mind that ROLLING STONE was then considered THE major rock magazine) that began:
"Paul Nelson's blade seems to be getting too big for him to carry.  He's so busy being cute and is such an obviously biased little prick, he invalidates his own reviews."

Then the book goes on to recount a conversation Nelson had with Jackson Browne concerning the Souther album:
Jackson Browne: "It was if he had wasted his time [two years] making this record.  It was as if his first record, which you liked, was made last week, and this week he didn't do so well.  Now, I don't think that's the job of the reviewer--if you don't mind my telling you your job this once.  I think often reviewers are given assignments and they write about something and they might not care for the thing.  They may be actually pissed off that they have to write about it, and that anger gets handed over to the artist."
Paul Nelson: "If I don't like John David's album, I dont see anything wrong with my saying that I don't like it."
Browne: "By the end of the review, I still didn't know why you didn't like it."
Nelson: "Because I thought it was real narcissistic."
"You know," Browne snapped his fingers, "that can be said just like that.  I disagree.  But I think it could be said without cultural references like Perrier and the amount of money one might have made."
"I wanted to shake him up," Paul shot back, "Which I told you in advance when we talked, that I thought--"
Browne: "No, you didn't tell me in advance.  You told me after you'd written it and before I had read it."

The punchline to this SoCal rock story:
Jackson Browne read the review of the Souther album and called Nelson "and demanded to know how he could've written such a thing."

Nelson was planning on writing a Jackson Browne biography before the Souther review blowup and Browne killed the project, saying "Well, I don't see how we can do a book now.  I couldn't go and do a book with the journalist that had savaged my friend."

And that's how people behave when they have money and the stakes are higher than, say, the poetry community (where similar behavior occurs too).

Friday, March 18, 2011

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: those who haven't made it into Jann Wenner's lifetime-achievement club.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20110317/COLUMN09/103170664/

And, from Wikipedia's article about the Hall:
The main criticism of the Hall of Fame is that the nomination process is controlled by a few individuals who are not musicians, such as founder Jann Wenner (who has filled the position of managing editor for Rolling Stone magazine), former foundation director Suzan Evans, and writer Dave Marsh, reflecting their tastes rather than the views of the rock world as a whole. A former member of the nominations board once commented that "At one point Suzan Evans lamented the choices being made because there weren't enough big names that would sell tickets to the dinner. That was quickly remedied by dropping one of the doo-wop groups being considered in favor of a 'name' artist...I saw how certain pioneering artists of the '50s and early '60s were shunned because there needed to be more name power on the list, resulting in '70s superstars getting in before the people who made it possible for them. Some of those pioneers still aren't in today."[19] According to Fox News, petitions with tens of thousands of signatures were also being ignored, and some groups that were signed with certain labels or companies or were affiliated with various committee members have even been put up for nomination with no discussion at all.[19] The committee has also been accused of largely ignoring certain genres.[20] According to author Brett Milano, "entire genres get passed over, particularly progressive rock, '60s Top 40, New Orleans funk and a whole lot of black music."[21]

Regarding the above paragraph from the Wikipedia article: It could be safe to say that Neil Diamond received his Hall pass at least due to his contributions to 60s Top 40--the new collection of his 66-68 Bang Records period (in Mono) is worth buying/downloading

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Elton John and Billy Joel pass messages to each other through Jann Wenner.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/billy-joel-responds-to-elton-johns-tough-love-in-the-new-rolling-stone-20110202

Some background: Billy Joel (and his music) used to be routinely hammered by ROLLING STONE until 1982--when, from the release of THE NYLON CURTAIN onwards, he was treated with more reverence.  For awhile in recent years, it seemed like no issue of RS would go by without some kind of reference to Joel's comings-and-goings.

With regards to Elton John's comment about Billy Joel's creative stasis: I myself wonder why Joel doesn't at least try to write new songs for, say, a Broadway-intended musical.

It's a lot better than drinking, wrecking cars and self-sorrow.

Monday, December 13, 2010

One more post on John Lennon.

I bought the latest issue of ROLLING STONE, with the full text of Jonathan Cott's 1980 interview with John Lennon.

In the November, 1980 issue of ESQUIRE, Laurence Shames' "John Lennon, Where Are You?" was published.  The article, which bemoaned the business activities (and, to an extent, the previous life) of Lennon, could be described as inflaming the mental disorder of Mark Chapman:
http://books.google.com/books?id=BeYCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=Laurence+Shames+Esquire&hl=en&ei=A34GTfyECoyksQPAw5ykBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Laurence%20Shames%20Esquire&f=false
Lennon didn't like Shames' take--and here's a portion of the response:
"That guy is the kind of person who used to be in love with you-you know, one of those people-and now hates you-a rejected lover.  I don't even know the asshole, but he spent his whole time looking for an illusion that he created of me, and then got upset because he couldn't find it."
A few lines later--"What they [referring to critics] want is dead heroes, like Sid Vicious and James Dean.  I'm not interested in being a dead f---ing hero...So forget 'em, forget 'em."

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

It was thirty years ago today: memories of before, during and after John Lennon's death.....

Around late summer/early fall of 1980, I remember being excited to read the Random Notes section of ROLLING STONE and discovering that John Lennon was ending his long (or so it seemed then) retirement to record a new album.

That album, DOUBLE FANTASY, appeared a couple of months later.  A DJ for the now-long-dead Top 40/AOR hybrid station KKQV-FM in Wichita Falls, TX played the album in its entirety--and pronounced it "Double Nightmare"; presumably, she didn't like John and Yoko forsaking activism for chronicling adventures in ordinary living.

And then, on the night of December 8, 1980, I came home from a foreign film appreciation class to find out that John Lennon had been murdered.

A few weeks before, Lennon gave an interview to NEWSWEEK.  He mentioned not wanting to be "Elvis Beatle" and made a chillingly prophetic comment: "The King is killed by his courtiers."

Days after Lennon's death, I remember reading a letter in the editorial section of a Wichita Falls newspaper.  It came from what I presumed was an elderly woman in Burkburnett.  She ranted that all four Beatles should have been shot.

Angered by this stupid, malevolent outburst, I quickly turned the page. 

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Sympathy for Matt Taibbi as he receives media flogging.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/02/this_is_what_happens_if_you_te.html

The above is a blog entry in NEW YORK magazine intended as a snarky takedown of Matt Taibbi, best known for recent ROLLING STONE articles pulling back the curtains on how the U.S. government and Wall Street (particularly investment bank titans like Goldman Sachs) really do business.

This passage kind of got to me (I'll do some highlighting):
"He’s unique in that he doesn’t see anything that is good," a former editor tells Vanity Fair. "He just notices the flaws in people." But woe to those who point out his flaws, as writer James Verini, who met with Taibbi found while trying to write a piece about Exile, the English-language magazine Taibbi co-published in Moscow in the nineties.

Sounds a lot like what certain people say about me when I say that certain poetry emperors don't do a lot of good for the world of local poetry.

But I'm not Matt Taibbi--daring to highlight-in-yellow piggish, thuggish behavior by governments, corporate instruments and investment banks, and taking abuse from a corporate mainstream media who prefers for us all to shut up and consume, taking everything at no more than face value.

I'll go out on a limb and say that Taibbi, for his occasional flaws (a tendency to be too uncomfortable with blue-collar America, despite his Billy Bob Thornton's-kid-brother appearance), loves the USA and what it could and should be.

And it's too bad he's being whipped for that in the pages of NEW YORK and VANITY FAIR.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Jann Wenner hits a huge low: a special ROLLING STONE Jonas Brothers issue.

I guess I should have seen it coming, given the tendency of ROLLING STONE to regard the teenpop act Jonas Brothers (now currently on a Disney Channel series that channels, in style, episodes of THE MONKEES) as legitimate-because-they're-making-money rockers.

But, a couple of hours ago at my local Costco in Northridge, CA, I discovered IT in all its malign banality.

Yes. Jann Wenner and Wenner Media just gave the world a ROLLING STONE Jonas Brothers special issue

Wenner didn't do this in the 90s for Hanson--which, if I remember correctly, got more respect from rock critics.

Wenner didn't do this in the 70s for The Osmonds or David and Shaun Cassidy. They only received articles and/or cover stories at best.

But now Jann Wenner, chasing preteen dollars, has devalued the ROLLING STONE brand in supplicant service to a teenpop group [and their Svengali father] which, earlier this year, had a less-than-successful foray into concert moviemaking (even with the power of the Walt Disney Company behind them).

As Sylvester, Jr. used to do in Warner Brothers cartoons, I will now put a paper bag over my head and say: "Oh, the shame of it!"

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Borders Books cut-cut-cutting DVDs and CDs from stores.

If you wander into a Borders Bookstore (as I did yesterday), you'll see red-tagged 30% discounts on a number of CDs and DVDs.
[UPDATE 3/23/09: I just received a standard customer e-mail from Borders which indicates that this sale isn't happening in certain cities such as NYC and San Francisco.]

Apparently, the chain is delivering on its desire to cut CD/DVD space by 70% (as was recently written about in ROLLING STONE).
[UPDATE 3/26/09: A story here confirms this: http://www.switched.com/2009/03/26/borders-to-quit-selling-cds-and-dvds/?icid=mainhtmlws-maindl4link5http%3A%2F%2Fwww.switched.com%2F2009%2F03%2F26%2Fborders-to-quit-selling-cds-and-dvds%2F]

Given Borders' continued commitment to keeping audiovisual content priced as high as possible (except for sales on older catalog product), one shouldn't be surprised that the available stock will be trimmed.

For the casual customer, this means remaining items will likely consist of what the chain predetermines as "best-selling". And the young staff will be losing their voices repeating the mantra: "We don't carry that in our store. We can special order it--or you can just go on our website."

It's easy to make a paranoid jump (given the company's financial state: http://www.borders.com/online/store/PartnerSiteInvestorsView) that entire sections of books may be next.

Poetry, perhaps?

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Shortsightedness of the music business and the print media.

This motto should be tattooed on foreheads of all people involved in the recorded music and newspaper industries: NOT ALL OUR CUSTOMERS GET MUSIC AND NEWS SOLELY THROUGH COMPUTERS. IN FACT, SOME OF OUR CUSTOMERS DON'T EVEN OWN A COMPUTER.

Two articles about the closing of all Virgin Megastores by this summer: http://www.walletpop.com/article/_a/bbdp/all-virgin-megastores-in-us-to-close-by/367924
http://www.salon.com/news/brand_graveyard/feature/2009/03/12/virgin/
Rolling Stone's take (check out this week's U2-cover story mag, where a print story on Virgin claims, among other things. that Borders Books are threatening to cut music-and-DVD space by 70% and other "Big Box" chains are threatening to cut their CD stock unless CD prices are lowered further):
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/03/02/all-virgin-megastores-set-to-close-as-last-big-national-music-chain-folds/

A back-and-forth on a RS comments site regarding the FYE chain closing stores:
[FYE employee]:
I’m shocked at some of these posts. I was a store manager for FYE for 7 years, my store was closed last year. You people know nothing about the cost of doing business. The stores are not making any money. When you margins are around 30% there is no money to be made.
The music industry is gone, and It will never be back. You can thank Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Best Buy and downloading.
For the idiot who posted, “charging $18.00 for a CD a bad business model.” Go kill yourself.
We are witnessing an entire industry go under. Think about all the people that have lost their jobs. The people that were in the music industry were not in for the money. They were in it because they loved music.

[rebuttal from another poster]:
Dude-I realize you were a former FYE manager, but the problem wasn’t with you: It was a bad business model. The companies that have staying power are the ones that accept change and adjust the business model accordingly. Maybe on a smaller scale..But what dipshits at the top didn’t see this coming? Lack of selection, extremely high prices on product that is the bread and butter of an industry on the verge of collapse, and a dwindling economy= no business. I hate downloading as much as the next guy. People who haven’t heard real music and prefer the shitty sound quality of an mp3 are determining the course of the industry, it’s a sad thing. I love vinyl. I’d rather buy a cd by an artist I like..But truth of the matter is, I support the small indie retailer in my town, who happens to do a booming business even on these troubled times. One of the reasons= reasonable prices. If the profit margins aren’t substantial, the company needs to find a new way of doing things…Change (even bad change) is inevitable. You have to adapt…

(Full posts can be found here: http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/01/18/decline-of-the-music-industry-hits-home-rolling-stone-loses-its-fye/)

And, regarding newspapers, it looks to me like a dog-chasing-tail story:
Advertising revenue declines--maybe from loss of circulation, maybe from poor economy. Corporation which owns newspaper wants to keep maximizing profits, so massive cuts in newsroom and printing staffs are made and number of pages are reduced. Public reacts negatively to lower quality of newspaper and loses interest in buying individual copies/subscriptions.

Repeat all of the above until newspaper is sold or goes out of business entirely.

To blame the poor health of the traditional newspaper mainly on the Internet and its greater facility for updating and adding news/sports/business/entertainment stories (plus the banner ads on websites) is sheer self-destructive silliness.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Matt Taibbi on Tom Daschle--written long before Daschle's tax problems.

Something to read in the wake of Tom Daschle's resignation as President Obama's health-care czar and his withdrawal from Secretary of Health and Human Services nomination due to tax payment problems: http://www.rollingstone.com/blogs/taibbiunbound/2008/12/the-whore-factor.php#more

The mainstream media doesn't seem to want to dig as deep as Taibbi in terms of Daschle's past record as an advocate for the health insurance companies' keep-things-as-they-are policies.

Instead, there's some wailing today about how Obama's health-care "reform" is being imperiled by the Daschle resignation. Here's the Associated Press' Jennifer Loven: http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/daschle-taxes/324156?icid=200100397x1218191867x1201179453