I reviewed last night’s amazing Mavis Staples show at The Hideout on the TOC blog this morning. Look for a review tomorrow of Liz Phair’s Exile in Guyville performance at the Vic.
Update: You can read that review here. And for the record, Guyville is not a double album. Even if it did come out on 2 LPs.
After 38 years as the conductor of “Soul Train,” Don Cornelius has sold the show to MadVision Entertainment. The company plans on creating new episodes, and it also sounds like they’ll be releasing old episodes on DVD and what have you.
First of all, I’d like to take this opportunity to pitch my idea for “The Afro-Sheen Music Minute,” a new “Soul Train” feature wherein ?uestlove of The Roots would review the week’s hot new tracks with Charlie Sheen. Go ahead and try to come up with a more compelling concept, I dare you. Plus, you’ve also got a built-in sponsorship opportunity.* You’re welcome, MadVision. Send me a Facebook message and we can do some business.
Also, wedding season is upon us. So it’s time to start building up your repertoire of dance moves now. Here is your homework:
* Apparently, they don’t make Afro Sheen anymore. Maybe Dark and Lovely will be interested.
Earlier this year, I picked up a bag of mail from the place I was living at a couple years ago. Along with discovering that I’d somehow been subscribed to New York magazine, I found that a few publicists didn’t get my forwarding address and a few promo CDs were waiting.
One of the first posts I ever wrote here was about using context clues to determine whether a band sucks or not, specifically the name. (Note: the following pertains only to how I determine whether I personally will enjoy a band’s album NOT whether the album has a certain artistic merit. You can only learn that by actually listening to it, though some professional music reviewers seem to disagree.)
In any case, “The” bands automatically start off ahead of the game, IMHO. No matter what follows the “The” you’re pretty much guaranteed a band that is trying to move you in that classic three-chords-and-an-attitude way, rather than trying so hard to prove its artistic worth that it gets swallowed up by artifice. Oddly enough, the exception to this rule is The The.
I’ll also confess that album art plays heavily into my pre-listen consideration. That sounds horrid, I know, but somehow I’ve developed a finely-developed sense for this as most bands attempt a visual reflection of what their albums sound like.
Cases in point were two CDs from the aforementioned pile that I set aside without even giving either a listen, based solely on the album art. I won’t mention the artists because I realize it’s patently unfair to slag a band this way without listening to its music. (Again, even though I have full confidence in using this system to judge music I like, it’s not a guarantee that the music won’t be enjoyed by someone else. Plus, there’s a big difference between music I like, and music that has artistic merit otherwise.)
This isn’t an argument against ugliness, it’s an argument against artifice. But just to be certain, I just grabbed both out of the circular file and did a little research. In looking each band up online, I’ve discovered the artist whose cover is an arty photo illustration of his face has a MySpace page whose most recent blog entry is titled “Competition to win Sony Video Walkman” while the other – whose cover is a hummingbird with peacock feathers floating in an invisible cube over a Dali-esque ocean – has a bio that begins “Born in Seattle in 1998 at the tender age of intent…”
I feel pretty confident that I am not missing anything here.
In this week’s TOC Theater section, you can read the apex of my journalism career: an interview with former Styx frontman Dennis DeYoung.*
A couple tidbits about this interview that don’t appear in print:
* In setting up the interview, DeYoung left me a voicemail that ended with him saying the following: “Alright? ALRIGHT? ALRIIIIGHT!” Reading this doesn’t do it justice, but imagine his voice getting both louder and higher until he hits the final “ALRIIIIGHT!” in perfect Rock Falsetto.
* When I called him back to set it up, he gave me both his office and cell phone number so I would have no problem reaching him. This was important because he, in his words, has “Rockzheimer’s” and forgets stuff.
* In response to a question about what his wife would say is the secret to staying married to a musician for 38 years, DeYoung mentioned the need for patience, kindness, understanding…and then began reciting the lyrics of “The Grand Illusion”. “I wrote that 30 years ago, it’s all right there.”
DeYoung was a really decent guy, and this was the most fun I’ve ever had during an interview. I’m really happy with the way this turned out, mainly because you really do get a sense of what he’s like to talk to, particularly bits like this:
TOC: Were you exposed to musical theater growing up?
Dennis DeYoung: Absolutely not. I grew up on the South Side of Chicago. I was exposed to the White Sox and “Do you want that beef dipped?”
Somehow, I managed to remain professional and not ask him what the deal was with a song like “Lorelei,” which extols the very un-rock virtues of cohabitation.
* Sorry this blog has exclusively become “Stuff I Do At Work.” I promise to get back to blowhard-y opinions about music and pop culture next week. But come on: “I want that beef dipped” didn’t kinda make your day a little?
Thanks to a ramshackle coalition of the Chicago Music Commission, live performance venue owners, and grass roots cultural supporters – largely organized online – the Chicago promoter’s ordinance was tabled, for now. The ordinance will likely be brought up for a vote next month, but this time it will be the result of input from the local music industry. Supposedly. Statements on the issue and a follow-up interview with Alderman Brendan Reilly on the TOC blog.
Right before the ordinance was tabled, I posted an overview of some of the less-reported details about the ordinance, particularly how it would affect film exhibitors, comedy shows and storefront theaters. It’s still worth looking at today as the city’s been making every effort to cloud the effects of this issue.
The theory I alluded to yesterday about why this ordinance was seemingly pushed through so quickly got a little more ammunition yesterday, when it was revealed in a statement from Alderman Schulter’s office that explicitly said the ordinance was introduced at the behest of the mayor. Sure, you could say this is a money grab by the city, but it’s really about making the city “safe” for the Olympics. But does “safe” mean cracking down on crime or sanitizing the cultural offerings in the city?
I’ll have more later today on the TOC blog on the lessons learned from this ordinance fight, particularly how it relates to this week’s TOC cover story on Chicago protests – past and present. (We couldn’t have planned that if we wanted to, but oh the serendipity!)
Yesterday, Chicago’s live performance community – including folks in the music and dance scenes – formed a critical mass of protest against the proposed promoter’s ordinance, which goes up for a vote in front of the City Council tomorrow. With all the talk about the influence of blogs and new media, which – despite a couple articles in the Sun-Times and Tribune – is where the real information about this story is coming out, you might be surprised to learn it’s taken this long. But the thing is, when politics is involved, things get muddled. People don’t realize how local government works, even in a political city like Chicago, and to really get to know a story like this, you need to delve into complex language and bureaucracy, and understand how governmental procedures work. More than one person – in the media and otherwise – sounded false alarms about how this ordinance was already a done deal.
But hey, even the city – and its aldermen – don’t seem to know the ordinance very well (see our Q&As with Aldermen Waugespack and Reilly on the TOC blog). The city’s been saying that artists won’t be precluded from promoting their shows, but that’s only if they do nothing but play and don’t deal with any of the “operational responsibility” of the show. Which is pretty much everything else.
We’ve had a couple conversations in the TOC offices about this ordinance, and what’s becoming clear to all of us is that this just doesn’t affect music and clubs, it also affects theater and comedy and any type of live performance in the city. Venue owners are just now figuring out how this might affect them. Non-profit theater owners are being told they’re safe, but that’s not how I’m reading this (and honestly, I’m about as much of an expert as anyone else at this point since I’ve talked to people on and off the record – who should know – who can’t tell me whether my interpretations are correct or not).
There’s also an open question of why this is happening now. I’ve got a couple theories, but if you operate from the point of view that everything that comes out of City Hall these days is about the Olympics, you can probably come up with a theory or two yourself.
In retrospect, maybe we should have done more analysis before now. So today, look for a post from me on the TOC blog about some of the detailed issues that are being overlooked on this ordinance. Also, I’ll be reviewing last night’s Swedefest at Schubas with El Perro del Mar and Lykke Li.
Yesterday I wrote a little something about the city’s promoter’s ordinance. Don’t let anyone fool you, this ordinance is not about safety, it’s about money. Money the city can’t get from promoters who sponsor shows at established venues (the city, of course, is exempt from these no licensing fees). And make no mistake: these aren’t cigar-chomping sleazebags, or people who operate unsafe clubs (note that the “impetus” for this proposal was the E2 disaster which can only tangentially be blamed on the promoters) these are people like…well, me, when I worked at Chicagoist and we would sponsor shows. Or Tankboy, or Gapers Block or any of the other individuals who put together bills and make this city’s music scene so great.
But as you’ll see if you read the post, I reserve most of my ire for the Chicago music community itself. For years now, differences among venue owners and other members of the community has prevented them from banding together as a group to prevent laws like this from passing. In fact, I wrote a variation on this post two years ago. I’ll be interested to see what actions are taken in advance of next week’s City Council vote.
Also, look for a review of last night’s Robyn show on the TOC blog later today.
Does it strike anyone else as weird that this:
…has the same name as this:
I know they’re Yazoo everywhere else but they’re Yaz here for crying out loud (and reuniting this summer!)
Two online biz topics today and a third at the end that’s just silly to encourage you to keep reading. For those of you who don’t have jobs like mine – or don’t much care for Web nerd talk – come back tomorrow for a new 25 in 12 post that’s been brewing for months.
For the two of you who are still reading, here are two interesting articles from this morning’s MediaBistro Newsfeed:
Mark Glaser at Media Shift thinks paying bloggers by page views is wrong. He lays out some solid arguments as to why, though I’d note that if you’re the editor of a site these days, your job performance is going to be judged, in part, by page views even if there isn’t a direct link from your salary to your PVs. While more people are starting to recognize that the number of returning visitors you have and the time a reader spends on the site is more important, your base hits or views is still going to be a benchmark.
Glaser’s best point is this:
“I believe that a blog with 50,000 loyal, repeat visitors is much more valuable to the publisher, advertisers — everyone on the business side — than a blog that has sensational posts that bring in 100,000 one-time visitors for entertainment snacks who are then gone the next moment.”
Niche topics do really well in the online world, mainly because it’s easier for the writing to find a larger audience than it would in a print publication. I’ve found this to be particularly true at TOC with our Theater coverage. It’s a small audience, but a fiercely loyal one that returns often, and comments frequently.
Also, Wired is unveiling a Web stylebook. With so many people coming onto the Web from other mediums and industries, this is something that’s sorely needed. There’s an ethics and method to the way Web publishing works that flies in the face of what works in print. Oddly enough, a “dead tree” product might be just what the industry needs.
OK, this isn’t related to wonky Web shit at all, but I’m curious: is Eddie Murphy’s “Party All The Time” secretly good? Forget that it’s by Eddie Murphy for a moment and consider it as a Rick James song. It’s not bad, right?
Speaking of Space Ace, Time Out New York’s classical music writer Steve Smith interviewed former KISS guitarist Ace Frehley last week (check out his blog for some backstory on it). He mentions that Frehley isn’t playing songs from his new album on the tour to prevent leaks on YouTube before its official release date later this month. This seemed insane to me, so I went looking for a direct quote and found one in
this story from Billboard:
“Every show’s on YouTube, every song…I don’t want to play any of the new songs ’cause I don’t want to give away anything. I want that magic and mystique of hearing something for the first time when you’re supposed to, so I don’t think I’m going to play any of (the new songs) until the CD’s released.”
To some extent, I understand what he’s saying: part of what’s exciting about music is hearing it within a specific context, whether it’s in a live club or on an album. And if you’re hearing or seeing it on YouTube, you’re getting a grainy picture with distorted sound that could potentially turn off the audience you’re trying to entice into buying your new record.
But with all due respect to Ace, the time for cultivating mystique has long since passed.
No one’s going to be playing Ace Frehley’s new record on the radio. That’s not a comment on the quality of his work, it’s just a reality of the biz in 2008. Rock radio has been in decline recently, and most classic rock artists – even touring behemoths like Springsteen – have a hard time getting adds.
But that audience is out there. They’ll still go to see these artists in clubs, and are chomping at the bit for new music. Steve’s post alludes to the personal connection that people have with the people who first introduced them to music. But they’re not kids anymore, looking up in awestruck wonder at the man with the makeup. They know the addiction battles, and the difficulties that he’s gone through. In fact, it’s a lack of mystique that inspires his current fandom. That kind of connection inspires a rabid fanbase, and there’s no better place to feed that rabidity than on the Internet.
The best way to beat the bootleggers has been to join them. If Frehley were to post his own YouTube videos (filmed with a decent video camera, not a camera phone) of live performances and the occasional behind-the-scenes clips, people would flock to them, and then buy tickets and the new album in order to have that same “first-time” experience again. And perhaps he ought to look into putting together his own site, so no one has to go searching for news about his latest record or tour. I guarantee that there’s a huge Frehley fan out there who’s just dying to be Space Ace’s webmaster. Probably for free.
In a world of instant nostalgia, rockers like Frehley ought to be trying to bring their audience closer, not keep them at a distance.
