I just got back from Burbank.  I was moving along swimmingly until I hit Westwood.  I’m reminded of why I stay home so much.  Hell, why go anywhere when the world is right here in front of me, on my 23" HD screen?  I can fire up the Web and go anywhere, INSTANTLY!  The real world is positively pedestrian.

And when I got back to my house I extracted the mail from the slot and found the new issue of the "New Yorker", uncharacteristically thick, with a perfect binding.  Slipping through the pages to the table of contents I ultimately learned that this was the INNOVATORS Issue.  That means tech in my book, so I started to scan the articles.  And bingo, halfway down the list, I saw Ken Auletta’s "Annals Of Communications, Critical Mass, The great arbiter of consumer technology."  Could it be that the foremost media writer was writing about the number one tech writer, Walt Mossberg?  I flipped to page 104 and found out YES!

Now I’m sitting on 132 unread e-mail messages (sorry if I haven’t gotten back to you), and have a whole host of other chores and commitments, but I couldn’t unglue my ass from the pot, I had to read this story about Walter Mossberg.

This is the experience I used to have with "Rolling Stone".  In college I cleared the decks the day the magazine arrived, I spent hours reading it from cover to cover.  Now I can read the WHOLE THING in one brief bathroom respite.  Oh, I used to like the news, but what intrigued me most in "Rolling Stone" was the stars, what they had to say.  Who gives a shit what today’s musicians have to say.  You know it’s pre-calculated to sell their music, and their music is not that good.  I need someone I can believe in, like Walt Mossberg.

And seeing this article in the "New Yorker" was like seeing a non-chart topping favorite in "Rolling Stone" back in the day.  There was an ANOINTMENT!  Other people felt like I did.  I wasn’t alone.

I read Mossberg’s columns in the "Wall Street Journal" every Wednesday and Friday.  Hell, I was running late earlier today because I was reading his buying guide on digital cameras, even though I just got a Canon from Felice over the holiday.  You see I need to know, I need to keep abreast, I need to be an EXPERT!  The same way I could tell you about recording studios all over the world from studying album covers.  I’m a fan.  And when I got e-mail from Walt I won’t say it was just like getting e-mail from David Gilmour, but it was CLOSE!

Now maybe you’re not tech-savvy, maybe you just don’t care, maybe you’re like Jim Baker, who doesn’t even use a cell phone.  But you’ll find some of the content in Auletta’s article VERY interesting.

The day the iPhone was introduced, engadget.com had more traffic than the "New York Times"’ Website.

Let me state it to you this way.  I was in Whistler, and I got an e-mail from David Carr, the "New York Times" media writer.  He wanted my take on the future of MTV.  I took 15 minutes out of my ski day, at roaming rates, to talk to Mr. Carr, who assured me that what I was telling him was brilliant and insightful.

But I didn’t appear in the article.

Oh, I’d be lying if I didn’t say I was disappointed.  But after thinking about it, I realized…maybe I reach the target demo better than HE does.  I mean one’s goal USED to be to get in the "New York Times", but now it doesn’t make your career.  Or, put another way, you don’t have to be in the "Times" to MAKE IT!

Patrick Goldstein quoted me extensively in his "Big Picture" column on the front page of the "Los Angeles Times" Calendar section last week.  I got one -email referencing the mention.  But yesterday, I made the MacDailyNews, and not only did I get e-mail, I got PHONE CALLS!

This is a dramatic change in the landscape.  It appears although the mainstream media says it’s the arbiter, oftentimes, it’s not.  People are getting their information elsewhere, from the Web.  Hell, I realized many people I know no longer GET the "Los Angeles Times", even though they live in the city!

And reading this "New Yorker" article you’ll be touched by Walt’s credibility.  Sprint and Samsung come to him with a new phone and he basically tells them it sucks.  You don’t do that in the music business, every record is GREAT!  When I tell people their records suck, oftentimes they attack me personally, I just don’t get it.  THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU SEND IT TO ME IN THE FIRST PLACE!

These are the new heroes, the truth-tellers.  Not the cogs in the old machine.

And Mr. Mossberg’s goal?  To make technology easier to use for the common folk.  Hell, I want it so easy to use that my mother doesn’t call me for help!

And there’s a reference to an era in the eighties when Mossberg receded from his friends.  When confronted,  he said he was MESMERIZED BY COMPUTERS!  Shit, it’s great to know I’M NOT THE ONLY ONE!  There was more stimulation in my MacPlus than almost all of the conversation in the music business, never mind the world at large.

And at the end of the article, there’s a focus on Peter Rojas, and the site he oversees, the aforementioned engadget.com.

Now this is important, so I’m gonna quote it:

"With the reviews he wrote for publications, Rojas says, ‘you kind of had to water it down and assume the audience didn’t really care about what you write about and you had to "hook" them into the article.  What I realized about blogging is you’re not going to read a blog about gadgets unless you’re really interested in gadgets.  I assume that our readers know that Sprint and Verizon are CDMA networks, and that T-Mobile and A.T.&T./Cingular are GSM networks.’ And by ‘writing up,’ he adds, ‘the higher we aim the more it grows, because the audience responds to that.’"

What Rojas is saying here is you’ve got to respect your audience.  That it’s not about broadcasting, but speaking to those who know and CARE!

I’ll give you an example.  On Sirius, late last Monday afternoon, the day after Coachella ended, I heard some nitwit tell me that there was a big festival in the desert, no inside information, just speaking to the lowest common denominator.  The people listening to this alternative station KNOW about Coachella.  They’ve read about it all over the Web, maybe they even watched the Webcast.  By not acknowledging the audience’s sophistication, people’s knowledge, you offend them.  Which is what Top Forty did to excess.

Or when a big label gets an act on TV to repeat the same story that was all over the Web…  The core audience has tuned in to hear MORE about their favorite, and now they’re turned OFF!

Play it safe, and you alienate your fan.

And not everybody is interested in engadget, and not everybody should be interested in your band.  But, as you can see from engadget’s hits exceeding those of the "Times", PLENTY OF PEOPLE DO CARE!

So, we’ve got niches.  With mutual respect.

Leave that respect out, and you’ve got no core audience.

Describes the mainstream music business to a T, wouldn’t you say?

I feel like it’s 1969 all over again.  When nobody else I knew had heard of "Rolling Stone", when my parents’ generation pooh-poohed rock music, when it got little coverage in the mainstream press.  I felt the vibe, I could feel the pulse.  And Woodstock showed that I was not alone.

This tech revolution is no joke.  It’s not just about kids stealing music P2P, it’s much more than that.  It’s got to do with exhibition, and eyeballs and relationships.  It’s got to do with elements that those at traditional media companies are COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR WITH!

Which is why upstarts will have such power in the future, and probably rule the music business.

Young ‘uns know the difference between GSM and CDMA.  They know Motorola is done, they laugh at you if you’re carrying a Razr.  They’re clued in.  It’s so exciting.  Come with me, JUMP IN!

You can read the complete "New Yorker" Mossberg article at:

Critical Mass
Everyone listens to Walter Mossberg.
by Ken Auletta