In what may be the least-unexpected news out of the music world since the last time the Rolling Stones announced yet another world tour, troubled chanteuse and Jewish role-model Amy Winehouse was found dead in her London home, a likely victim of a drug overdose. Herewith, an open letter to Ms. Winehouse's fans:
While you rend your garments and bewail the loss of whatever future music might have come from your fallen star, we ask that you also consider the cardinal sin of Amy Winehouse. Not her use of drugs--which may or may not prove to be the cause of her death (as of this writing still officially classified as "unexplained"). If drug use among musicians merited instant condemnation, we'd all have nothing to listen to but the Osmonds and Linkin' Park (those kids are so squeaky-clean it's obnoxious). Her great sin was her unprofessional attitude toward her own talent. No matter how much a performing artist craves her bottle or her pills, the one thing she must do is show up sober for her audience--for you--something Winehouse failed to do on more than one occasion.
Your-Not-So-Humble-Correspondent has some experience in the performing arts, and he has worked with his share of actors with substance-abuse issues. Years ago, we did a show with a leading man who was a hardcore alcoholic. Every night after the show, he would tend to his needs as he saw them. He was middle-aged and lonely and, frankly, sad. But every night he was on time for curtain. Every night he said his lines word-perfect. He never missed a cue and never blew a scene. He may very well be dead by now, quite possibly a victim of his own self-destructive habits, but while he might have had contempt for himself, he had great respect for his craft and, by extension, his audiences.
Amy Winehouse had nothing but contempt for you.
Winehouse does leave behind an impressive artistic legacy. Not just in her music, but in her popularization of a style of jazz and soul-inflected retro-pop--a popularization that has paved the way for such Winehousian acolytes as Duffy and Adele. If it's any comfort, we're sure Adele can do the entire Amy Winehouse catalog as well as, if not better, than the originator. She'll probably manage to show up sober for concerts, too.
Amy Winehouse the musician was a considerable talent. Amy Winehouse the person deserves little of your sympathy.
The Solipsist
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
IOC Admits Defeat, Makes Cheating Olympic Event
Lausanne, Switzerland--International Olympic Committee President Jaques Rogge announced today that, given the futility of policing dozens of corrupt national Olympic teams, the IOC would introduce cheating as a medal event, beginning in London in 2012.
Asked whether this comparatively short lead-time would allow nations to field competitive cheating squads in time for next summer's games, Rogge replied that numerous countries have already put together highly-qualified teams, even in advance of his announcement.
"Already there's great buzz around the Russians and Nigerians. But I wouldn't be too quick to discount the Americans' chances. When their backs are against the wall, those Yanks can cheat with the best of them."
Cheating medals will be awarded for illegal performance enhancement, graft, and creativity.
The US is expected to do well in performance enhancement, reuniting former Major Leaguers Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco as co-captains for the London games. "We've been doing a lot of preliminary work," Canseco told reporters. "Mark's been giving me regular injections in my butt."
Canseco hastened to clarify that he was talking about steroids.
"We've got some good young juicers on the squad," McGwire confirmed. "Just take a look at Halstead. He's going to do some great things next year."
Indeed, Jesse Halstead, a 22-year-old former hammer thrower from Skokie, Illinois, who boasts 54" biceps and has been tasered three times due to sudden rage attacks, feels very confident about his chances:
"GrrrrrrrrrYEEEEEEEEEArrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhh. . .llllll," Halstead said when asked about his training regimen.
The Russians are heavy favorites in the graft competition. When asked about the team's chances, noted Russian legitimate businessman Mikhail "The Vivisector" Punchilakov was guardedly optimistic. "We think team do very well. We have especially good feelings about French, Latvian, Egyptian, and Peruvian judges. We think they and their families will find Russian team very persuasive." The ice-dancing "gold medalists" Yelena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze will captain the Russian team.
If there is a wildcard event, it is creativity. "This is the event where some of the smaller countries can truly shine," said Rogge. He pointed to the recent revelations of cheating in the world of international soccer, where the entire team from Togo was found to be fake. The German cheating squad is said to be organizing their routine around a massive dose of hallucinogens piped through the Olympic stadium's ventilation systems.
While some despair that these developments will irreparably tarnish the Olympics image. Mid-level Olympic committee employees, however, are sanguine about the developments. "Frankly, I'm happy about this," said Michelle von Sneed, an executive assistant in the committee's headquarters. "I was really getting tired of the weekly urine deliveries."
Asked whether this comparatively short lead-time would allow nations to field competitive cheating squads in time for next summer's games, Rogge replied that numerous countries have already put together highly-qualified teams, even in advance of his announcement.
"Already there's great buzz around the Russians and Nigerians. But I wouldn't be too quick to discount the Americans' chances. When their backs are against the wall, those Yanks can cheat with the best of them."
Cheating medals will be awarded for illegal performance enhancement, graft, and creativity.
The US is expected to do well in performance enhancement, reuniting former Major Leaguers Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco as co-captains for the London games. "We've been doing a lot of preliminary work," Canseco told reporters. "Mark's been giving me regular injections in my butt."
Canseco hastened to clarify that he was talking about steroids.
"We've got some good young juicers on the squad," McGwire confirmed. "Just take a look at Halstead. He's going to do some great things next year."
Indeed, Jesse Halstead, a 22-year-old former hammer thrower from Skokie, Illinois, who boasts 54" biceps and has been tasered three times due to sudden rage attacks, feels very confident about his chances:
"GrrrrrrrrrYEEEEEEEEEArrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhh. . .llllll," Halstead said when asked about his training regimen.
The Russians are heavy favorites in the graft competition. When asked about the team's chances, noted Russian legitimate businessman Mikhail "The Vivisector" Punchilakov was guardedly optimistic. "We think team do very well. We have especially good feelings about French, Latvian, Egyptian, and Peruvian judges. We think they and their families will find Russian team very persuasive." The ice-dancing "gold medalists" Yelena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze will captain the Russian team.
If there is a wildcard event, it is creativity. "This is the event where some of the smaller countries can truly shine," said Rogge. He pointed to the recent revelations of cheating in the world of international soccer, where the entire team from Togo was found to be fake. The German cheating squad is said to be organizing their routine around a massive dose of hallucinogens piped through the Olympic stadium's ventilation systems.
While some despair that these developments will irreparably tarnish the Olympics image. Mid-level Olympic committee employees, however, are sanguine about the developments. "Frankly, I'm happy about this," said Michelle von Sneed, an executive assistant in the committee's headquarters. "I was really getting tired of the weekly urine deliveries."
Thursday, July 21, 2011
That's the Ticket
What, exactly, is so bad about ticket-scalping? If someone buys a concert ticket, then that ticket becomes the property of that buyer, to use, give away, or sell as he sees fit. If one buys a ticket for an ultimately sold-out show at a cost of, say, $100, and then finds someone else who would like to see that same show and is willing to pay, say, $110 or $150, or $200, or $10,000 for the privilege, why should the original buyer not have the right to sell? Concert tickets, of course, exemplify what economists refer to as an inelastic good: There is a fixed amount of seats available for any given show; the number of seats will not change, regardless of pricing signals sent by scalpers and their buyers (for simplicity's sake, assume that additional shows cannot be added). The "invisible hand" of the market suggests--nay, requires--that people sell their tickets for whatever price the market will bear.
Indeed, the relaxation of laws against scalping suggests that, in principle, the public is willing to accept this idea of profitable resale. Major (legal) online marketplaces like Stubhub have based their business model on the ability to buy and sell tickets on a secondary market. Now, however, the Fans First Coalition, a non-profit organization supported by such music-industry titans as R.E.M. and the Dixie Chicks, is taking aim at sites like Stubhub in the name of making it easier for music fans to see their favorite artists. This nice story becomes somewhat less inspiring when you find out that Fans First is backed by Ticketmaster, which of course has its own less-than-altruistic motives for wanting Stubhub reined in.
But let's go back to the original question of whether ticket-scalping is wrong. We suspect most people would probably agree to some extent with the right of a ticket-holder to dispose of his tickets--his property--however he sees fit. If someone else wants the ticket more than the original buyer, and is willing to pay the original buyer a premium for it, well, why begrudge the owner the right to make a profit. Most people are upset not with the individual ticket reseller, but with the giant conglomerates--the organizations that buy up huge blocks of tickets with the sole intention of reselling them at exorbitant mark-ups. The proliferation of "bots" that can snatch up entire ticket inventories within seconds of them going on sale has only aggravated the situation. It certainly seems, if not criminal, at least unfair.
But is it? Look, let's say Bruce Springsteen is playing the Meadowlands and tickets cost $100 apiece. When the tickets go on sale, they may be bought up immediately by resellers, who then turn around and sell them to Boss-hungry fans for, say, $150 each, making a hefty profit on the transaction. But here's the thing: People buy the tickets! Bruce will surely not be playing to an empty stadium. The fact that the tickets are resold en masse for $150 (or $200 or $500) each may in fact be unfair. But unfair to whom?
Because the size of the resale market suggests that, if anything, the tickets were underpriced to begin with. If people are willing to pay more than $100 for the seats shouldn't the original price have been more than $100? The fact is that the ticket resellers are not taking advantage of the fans--who, after all, are freely choosing to buy the tickets at whatever price--but of the artists and venues. Not that Bruce Springsteen is hurting financially, but if we spend $150 on a ticket to a Springsteen show, we'd like to think our money was going to the artist--not to people whose only contribution to the artistic experience is to try to corner the market on it.
The basic problem in the ticket-selling industry, then, is one of accurate initial pricing. If artists knew beforehand how high the secondary market prices would go, they could simply sell the tickets for that price. There would be no incentive for the ticketbots to snatch up and resell tickets, as they wouldn't be able to make a profit. Let's say Springsteen knew that the highest price anyone would pay for his show was $5,000. If tickets went on sale at that price, then those willing to spend that money would grab them. If Stubhub and its ilk bought up all the tickets, well, so be it. But why would they? They would only be able to resell them for the same $5,000--since we've established that nobody willspend more than that. And if the concert doesn't sell out at $5,000? Prices would gradually be lowered, and, at each price point, those who wanted to pay that amount would do so, until all the tickets were gone.
Some will argue that this kind of price structure truly excludes the "average fan," who will never be able to afford the initially "overpriced" tickets, and who will find all the tickets gone by the time they reach a "reasonable" price. As someone who would never consider spending more than, say, $29.50 for a concert ticket, we are sympathetic to this position. Nevertheless, the fact is that, as long as there are people willing to pay exorbitant prices, then exorbitant prices will be paid--the "average fan" gets screwed no matter what.
The flaw in this model, of course, is the fact that we don't know what maximum amount people will pay until they pay it--by which point the ticket has long passed out of the control of the artist or the venue and into the hands of the resellers. But we suspect that, with the sophisticated software that exists today, some enterprising economist could put together a model that would allow artists and their reps to devise a way to more accurately predict the demand for--and thus the price of--tickets.
Sounds like a good doctoral project to us.
Solipsistography
"Scalping Battle Putting 'Fans' in the Middle"
Indeed, the relaxation of laws against scalping suggests that, in principle, the public is willing to accept this idea of profitable resale. Major (legal) online marketplaces like Stubhub have based their business model on the ability to buy and sell tickets on a secondary market. Now, however, the Fans First Coalition, a non-profit organization supported by such music-industry titans as R.E.M. and the Dixie Chicks, is taking aim at sites like Stubhub in the name of making it easier for music fans to see their favorite artists. This nice story becomes somewhat less inspiring when you find out that Fans First is backed by Ticketmaster, which of course has its own less-than-altruistic motives for wanting Stubhub reined in.
But let's go back to the original question of whether ticket-scalping is wrong. We suspect most people would probably agree to some extent with the right of a ticket-holder to dispose of his tickets--his property--however he sees fit. If someone else wants the ticket more than the original buyer, and is willing to pay the original buyer a premium for it, well, why begrudge the owner the right to make a profit. Most people are upset not with the individual ticket reseller, but with the giant conglomerates--the organizations that buy up huge blocks of tickets with the sole intention of reselling them at exorbitant mark-ups. The proliferation of "bots" that can snatch up entire ticket inventories within seconds of them going on sale has only aggravated the situation. It certainly seems, if not criminal, at least unfair.
But is it? Look, let's say Bruce Springsteen is playing the Meadowlands and tickets cost $100 apiece. When the tickets go on sale, they may be bought up immediately by resellers, who then turn around and sell them to Boss-hungry fans for, say, $150 each, making a hefty profit on the transaction. But here's the thing: People buy the tickets! Bruce will surely not be playing to an empty stadium. The fact that the tickets are resold en masse for $150 (or $200 or $500) each may in fact be unfair. But unfair to whom?
Because the size of the resale market suggests that, if anything, the tickets were underpriced to begin with. If people are willing to pay more than $100 for the seats shouldn't the original price have been more than $100? The fact is that the ticket resellers are not taking advantage of the fans--who, after all, are freely choosing to buy the tickets at whatever price--but of the artists and venues. Not that Bruce Springsteen is hurting financially, but if we spend $150 on a ticket to a Springsteen show, we'd like to think our money was going to the artist--not to people whose only contribution to the artistic experience is to try to corner the market on it.
The basic problem in the ticket-selling industry, then, is one of accurate initial pricing. If artists knew beforehand how high the secondary market prices would go, they could simply sell the tickets for that price. There would be no incentive for the ticketbots to snatch up and resell tickets, as they wouldn't be able to make a profit. Let's say Springsteen knew that the highest price anyone would pay for his show was $5,000. If tickets went on sale at that price, then those willing to spend that money would grab them. If Stubhub and its ilk bought up all the tickets, well, so be it. But why would they? They would only be able to resell them for the same $5,000--since we've established that nobody willspend more than that. And if the concert doesn't sell out at $5,000? Prices would gradually be lowered, and, at each price point, those who wanted to pay that amount would do so, until all the tickets were gone.
Some will argue that this kind of price structure truly excludes the "average fan," who will never be able to afford the initially "overpriced" tickets, and who will find all the tickets gone by the time they reach a "reasonable" price. As someone who would never consider spending more than, say, $29.50 for a concert ticket, we are sympathetic to this position. Nevertheless, the fact is that, as long as there are people willing to pay exorbitant prices, then exorbitant prices will be paid--the "average fan" gets screwed no matter what.
The flaw in this model, of course, is the fact that we don't know what maximum amount people will pay until they pay it--by which point the ticket has long passed out of the control of the artist or the venue and into the hands of the resellers. But we suspect that, with the sophisticated software that exists today, some enterprising economist could put together a model that would allow artists and their reps to devise a way to more accurately predict the demand for--and thus the price of--tickets.
Sounds like a good doctoral project to us.
Solipsistography
"Scalping Battle Putting 'Fans' in the Middle"
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Birth Control: Not Just for Rich Folks, Anymore
An advisory panel has recommended that insurance providers be required to cover contraception. If adopted, this rule would allow women of all income levels reasonable access to basic contraceptive measures (e.g., birth-control pills, etc). This measure would presumably reduce unwanted pregnancies and, consequently, abortions. Sounds like a win-win for everyone. It's always nice to see common-sense rearing its unfamiliar head in our hyperpartisan political culture. Who could have a problem with this?
Oh, of course. . . .
Just because insurance companies COVER reproductive services like birth control, this doesn't mean that you and your co-religionists would be forced to TAKE birth-control pills or have abortions.
There! That should take care of that! You're welcome, America!
Solipsistography
"Panel Recommends Coverage for Contraception"
Oh, of course. . . .
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and some conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, denounced the recommendation on birth control.We've spent many a fruitless hour trying to understand and/or sympathize with the knee-jerk hostility of religious zealots to anything that runs afoul of their beliefs (notwithstanding the fact that these folks have freely chosen to live in a country which, at least in principle, gives no consideration to religious beliefs when formulating legislation). We think we've finally figured out what's bothering these people. So, in the interest of promoting national harmony, we would like to send a message to the Deirdre A. McQuades of the nation:
“Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed,” said Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat. “But the Institute of Medicine report treats them as such.”
Just because insurance companies COVER reproductive services like birth control, this doesn't mean that you and your co-religionists would be forced to TAKE birth-control pills or have abortions.
There! That should take care of that! You're welcome, America!
Solipsistography
"Panel Recommends Coverage for Contraception"
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Out of Our Depth
Last night on "The Colbert Report" thanked the Japanese women's soccer team for saving America from having to care about soccer. But maybe we've all been too hasty in our dismissal of "the beautiful game." After all, international soccer has everything we American look for in a sport: athleticism, suspense, and apparently rampant corruption.
We're not just talking about the occasional steroid injection or a few grand slipped to the Belgian midfielder (did we say that right? Midfielder?) to miss a free throw (whatever). That's kid stuff:
No wonder the US can't compete in international soccer. Our athletes may be unscrupulous cheaters, but these guys are in a whole different league.
Solipsistography
"Game Fixing Rattles Soccer Around World"
We're not just talking about the occasional steroid injection or a few grand slipped to the Belgian midfielder (did we say that right? Midfielder?) to miss a free throw (whatever). That's kid stuff:
"Specific games that have drawn scrutiny include an under-20 matchup between Argentina and Bolivia in December in which the referee, who was from Hungary, extended the game by more than 10 minutes after gamblers had bet heavily that a goal would be scored in the last five minutes, and a Bahrain-Togo game in which the Togo team, a 3-0 loser, was later revealed to be fake."We had to read that last part a couple of times. The Togo team was fake?!? How do you fake a whole team? (Granted, people have questioned the authenticity of such teams as the New York Mets, but, hard though it is sometimes to believe, they appear to be an actual baseball team.) Shouldn't the fact that the entire team of. . . Togans?. . . spoke only Mongolian and kept trying to whack the ball with a club carved from a yak's horn have tipped somebody off?
No wonder the US can't compete in international soccer. Our athletes may be unscrupulous cheaters, but these guys are in a whole different league.
Solipsistography
"Game Fixing Rattles Soccer Around World"
Monday, July 18, 2011
Trends, Glorious Trends
10. Mobile Advertising: Because when you're on the go, and away from your desktop, it's good to know that people can still try to sell you penis-enlargement medication. (And if you're reading this on your Smartphone, we want a cut of those advertising dollars!)
9. IBM: We don't know why this is "trending." As far as we know, IBM hasn't been trendy since the Reagan era. Maybe they meant "IBS"? Because irritable bowels never go out of style.
8. Cloud computing: Boy, "Trending Now" is boring today! We love the idea of cloud computing, of being able to access anything from anywhere, but we became disillusioned when we realized that just linking our iPod to our iPod was a multi-step process involving a third device (i.e., a computer) and several yards of razor wire (don't ask). Outlook for cloud computing? Partly cloudy! (Hyuk.)
7. Katie Holmes: The big news is apparently that "Bikini-Clad Katie Holmes Kisses Tom Cruise." So. . . that's still going on, huh? Would have thought the beard would be all itchy by now.
6. Betty White: Donned her bikini and kissed Tom Cruise. Then she kissed Katie Holmes. Then Tom Cruise kissed both of them and jumped around on the nearest sofa. Which belonged to Steven Spielberg. Who also kissed Cruise. Then things started to get weird.
5. Military Benefits: A spending bill denies military benefits to same-sex couples. Do right-wing zealots ever miss an opportunity to act like total dicks?
4. Cash Cab Accident: If you've never seen it, "Cash Cab" is a game-show set in, well, in a taxi cab. Unsuspecting passengers board the cab and then, after they give their destination, lights flash and bells ring, and they are told that they are actually on a quiz show. During their ride, the cabbie asks the passengers trivia questions of increasing difficulty. As long as they answer correctly, the passengers earn more money, which they get to keep upon reaching their destination. If they get three answers wrong, however, the passenger lose everything and are thrown out of the cab immediately. No word on whether the cab stops first. Anyway, a pedestrian in Canada was struck and killed by the Great White North's version of the Cash Cab. Our condolences go out to the man's family. Nothing worse than losing a loved one, except maybe losing a loved one to something so ludicrous.
3. Bieber Wedding Crash: At a wedding in Malibu, the hosts broke out the karaoke machine. Someone started singing a Bieberlieder when the Biebmeister himself burst in! Seems he had been walking along the beach and heard his own voice--which apparently has the same effect on Bieber as female chimp sweat does on a male chimp. Bieber gave an impromptu performance, leaving the audience thrilled. In a related story, the karaok company has promised to remove all Bieber songs from its catalog--you can't take any chances.
2. Julianne Hough: Because it wouldn't be trendy without a "Dancing with the Stars" shout-out.
And the number one trendiest topic of THIS MOMENT IN TIME is. . . .
1. Lamar Odom Accident: The Lakers star was a passenger in a car that hit a motorcyclist and a pedestrian. While the cyclist and pedestrian were injured, Odom went on with his journey, winning a grand total of $4,800 before reaching his destination.
9. IBM: We don't know why this is "trending." As far as we know, IBM hasn't been trendy since the Reagan era. Maybe they meant "IBS"? Because irritable bowels never go out of style.
8. Cloud computing: Boy, "Trending Now" is boring today! We love the idea of cloud computing, of being able to access anything from anywhere, but we became disillusioned when we realized that just linking our iPod to our iPod was a multi-step process involving a third device (i.e., a computer) and several yards of razor wire (don't ask). Outlook for cloud computing? Partly cloudy! (Hyuk.)
7. Katie Holmes: The big news is apparently that "Bikini-Clad Katie Holmes Kisses Tom Cruise." So. . . that's still going on, huh? Would have thought the beard would be all itchy by now.
6. Betty White: Donned her bikini and kissed Tom Cruise. Then she kissed Katie Holmes. Then Tom Cruise kissed both of them and jumped around on the nearest sofa. Which belonged to Steven Spielberg. Who also kissed Cruise. Then things started to get weird.
5. Military Benefits: A spending bill denies military benefits to same-sex couples. Do right-wing zealots ever miss an opportunity to act like total dicks?
4. Cash Cab Accident: If you've never seen it, "Cash Cab" is a game-show set in, well, in a taxi cab. Unsuspecting passengers board the cab and then, after they give their destination, lights flash and bells ring, and they are told that they are actually on a quiz show. During their ride, the cabbie asks the passengers trivia questions of increasing difficulty. As long as they answer correctly, the passengers earn more money, which they get to keep upon reaching their destination. If they get three answers wrong, however, the passenger lose everything and are thrown out of the cab immediately. No word on whether the cab stops first. Anyway, a pedestrian in Canada was struck and killed by the Great White North's version of the Cash Cab. Our condolences go out to the man's family. Nothing worse than losing a loved one, except maybe losing a loved one to something so ludicrous.
3. Bieber Wedding Crash: At a wedding in Malibu, the hosts broke out the karaoke machine. Someone started singing a Bieberlieder when the Biebmeister himself burst in! Seems he had been walking along the beach and heard his own voice--which apparently has the same effect on Bieber as female chimp sweat does on a male chimp. Bieber gave an impromptu performance, leaving the audience thrilled. In a related story, the karaok company has promised to remove all Bieber songs from its catalog--you can't take any chances.
2. Julianne Hough: Because it wouldn't be trendy without a "Dancing with the Stars" shout-out.
And the number one trendiest topic of THIS MOMENT IN TIME is. . . .
1. Lamar Odom Accident: The Lakers star was a passenger in a car that hit a motorcyclist and a pedestrian. While the cyclist and pedestrian were injured, Odom went on with his journey, winning a grand total of $4,800 before reaching his destination.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Ginger Attack!
Former News Corp executive Rebekah Brooks, who resigned her position on Friday, has been arrested in connection with the ongoing phone-hacking scandal in Britain.
If she avoids jail time, we have some advice about her next career move: Forget publishing! Instead, she should get together with Shaun White,
the guy from Simply Red,
and Alexei Lalas circa 1990.
They should form a Viking-themed death-metal band and go around the world creeping the hell out of audiences everywhere.
If she avoids jail time, we have some advice about her next career move: Forget publishing! Instead, she should get together with Shaun White,
the guy from Simply Red,
and Alexei Lalas circa 1990.
They should form a Viking-themed death-metal band and go around the world creeping the hell out of audiences everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)