https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/magazine/greatest-american-songwriters-alive.html

This is a live show, call in with your take.

Tune in Saturday May 16th to Faction Talk, channel 103, at 4 PM East, 1 PM West.

Phone #: 844-686-5863

If you miss the episode, you can hear it on demand on the SiriusXM app. Search: Lefsetz

1

Concerts are now a luxury item.

The heyday of classic rock is over, when boomers and gen-X’ers went to multiple shows a year, sometimes a month, for under ten dollars. Now you don’t go to a show on a whim, it’s a splurge.

As for the economics of the country, I point you to this story in today’s “New York Times”: 

“Consumers Spent More in April Despite High Gas Prices – Retail sales rose 0.5 percent despite higher prices for gas, food and other goods. But there are signs consumers are under some strain.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/14/business/retail-sales-consumer-spending-april.html

So if you’re pointing to the general financial situation of the country for a decline in ticket sales, that doesn’t fly.

Then again, if concerts are luxury goods…

That market is hazy. Luxury goods sales have been down for two reasons, higher prices and the collapse of the market in China. Then again, Burberry’s sales are up, but they were way down previously. But LVMH just sold off Marc Jacobs, trying to wrest control of a portfolio that became so large as to be unmanageable, at least in the eyes of investors.

So…

This is not the way the concert business was perceived in the past. Acts started in clubs, then graduated to theatres and ultimately to arenas, assuming they had success. And success was driven by the efforts of the record company promoting your tunes and the quality of your live show and its connection with fans.

But now, successful acts start in arenas. Are Olivia Dean tickets so hot because she’s such a great performer? No, she’s barely worked in America, and sales are based on the records.

But let’s go back to the club level. Clubs are challenged, and one of the main problems is attendees don’t want to consume alcohol. Is this a change in mores, or price?

I

 point you to this article in the “Wall Street Journal”: 

“Drinks Are So Expensive That Grown-Ups Are Pregaming Like They Did in College – Americans are turning to the tradition to stretch their dollars—and their buzz”

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/drinks-are-so-expensive-that-grown-ups-are-pregaming-like-they-did-in-college-825aab34

The alcohol tastes the same whether you consume it at home or in the club, arguably the drink is superior at home, where you can pour more alcohol to mixer. So why not tank up before you go?

But you can’t see the band at home. Twenty five years have taught us that video broadcasts of concerts are not a significant business, in other words, you’ve got to be there.

It’s all about being there, but where do you have to be?

2

In addition to rising costs, for both performer and ticket-buyer, the concert business now resembles the country at large, especially on the internet, where winner takes all. Today people just don’t consume the talent that comes to their market, they’d rather travel to experience those acts they really want to see.

You see the internet allows for a million voices, but in a competitive marketplace, where everything sits right alongside another, a few stand out, and they get all the dollars. No one has been able to compete with Google or Amazon yet. Sure, you can search on Bing or DuckDuckGo, but very few people do. And when you buy from Amazon…you trust the company and delivery is fast and cheap and… Do you really need something almost as good from a less known competitor? That’s how it is in music, even if you could save a buck or two, do you want to see any but the best acts?

But what are the best acts?

That world has changed too.

MTV created a monoculture in the eighties. If you were on MTV, everybody knew your name around the world, there was demand. So if you were one of the few acts that reached that pinnacle, whose videos were shown, you would sell tickets. How many? That’s another question. But once again, forty years ago you started small and cheap to test the waters, now you go full bore.

And if there is demand, if people click with the act, there’s no price that is too high for a ticket.

But the ubiquity of the pre-internet era has been lost.

Legacy media keeps trumpeting acts in the Spotify Top 50 that ultimately have a small footprint, most people don’t know them. Then again, there are a hundred million more people in America than there were fifty years ago, and the buildings are not getting any bigger. So when you sell out arenas you believe demand is massive and wide, when this is oftentimes untrue. Whereas in the past…

Forget the classic rock acts, Coldplay had video hits before that paradigm died twenty-odd years ago. They haven’t had a universal tune since, but they sell out stadiums all over the world, it’s nearly unfathomable.

Then there are hitmakers du jour who are hot and sell a lot of tickets and there’s this misimpression that demand is deep and wide and they move to larger buildings and find out the demand is not there.

And, in a hit-based market, hits matter. In the album era of yore, you built fans over multiple LPs and tours. Sure, fans wanted to hear the hits, but they wanted more than that. And those acts can still sell tickets today. Whereas most of the Spotify Top 50…if there are no more hits ticket sales drop off.

3

So it’s a business. And at the club level, it’s challenged. We keep hearing in the U.K. and U.S. that clubs must be saved. But when was the last time a band made it on a purely live basis, from demand in clubs all the way to arenas? Of course there are exceptions, but the average punter does not want to go to a club to see a developing act. They’d rather pay much more to see a hit act which they are desirous of seeing.

And record companies don’t subsidize club tours like they used to, they’re not convinced these sell records/streams, which is how they make their money. If you start small, you may stay small.

Now as we start moving up the food chain, and the truth is the definition of these venues has changed, what were once called theatres are now called clubs, but… Those who can sell a thousand tickets give or take, usually their recording income is small, so they depend upon the road. And therefore they return to markets much more frequently than they used to, they need the money. And none of these shows are cheap, even if they’re not exorbitantly expensive, but at what point do you say you’ve seen the act enough at these prices?

And when you get to the arena level… No one goes who isn’t into the act. No one goes on a whim.

So there’s always demand. People want to go to shows.

But live music? That used to be a staple of society, ubiquitous. But to a great degree it’s been replaced by records. People would rather hear the hits than wannabes doing inferior covers or playing unknown originals. So the concept of going to the bar/club to hear a new band… The demand is just not there like it was in the old days.

4

So, as I’ve said previously, there’s a seemingly unlimited demand, at high prices, for desirable acts. And then you’ve got the problem that perceived value is so high that tickets, although expensive, are UNDERPRICED!

But if you look at concerts like luxury goods… They’re even more exotic than luxury goods, because when the show is over all you’ve got is your memories, you still don’t have your designer handbag.

This is not like yesteryear, where an act could be regionally successful, sell tickets somewhere and almost none in another place. If you’ve made it to the arena level, the internet has spread word across the nation, business is either strong, or weak.

And all the metrics of yore are useless. Past history is helpful, but not definitive. The marketplace can change just that fast. And it has always been fluid, but if you built an act up over time, via multiple albums and tours, you didn’t expect demand to evaporate, it could decline, but not go to zero. But today, was the act just the flash of the moment?

And was the moment more press-driven than music-driven, was there momentary mania?

And then there are the acts whose fan base is rabid, but narrow. Like BTS and the rest of the KPop acts. Their fans are diehard, but seemingly everybody else shrugs. And for all the people dying to get into the Eras show, there are those who wouldn’t attend a Taylor Swift show even if it was free. And sure, there have always been people who don’t like certain acts, but the big acts had much more mindshare, you’d heard their hits, now sometimes people reject acts based on image, they’ve never even heard the music.

5

So how much demand is out there?

Well I ask you, other than recent hitmakers, how many acts have a history, a long career of success? We can point to Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga. But if we cast the net wider we oftentimes find acts had a moment, and is that enough to sustain demand? Probably not, not in these venues at these prices.

Nobody used to balk at the price of concert tickets. They weren’t that expensive, they were not a luxury good. But now, desirable show prices are stratospheric, you really have to ask yourself if it’s worth it.

And the truth is it’s worth a lot to many people.

6

So, what do we know…

Is there really blue dot fever? Well, it’s hard to calculate demand, so many shows go up, the marketplace is muddied with multiple offers. So on sale demand might be high, but if you don’t go clean immediately, there’s a good chance tickets will sell close to the date, or not. In between, there will be a trickle.

But it appears that the economy might not be having an effect on people’s spending. Unless you consider concerts a luxury good. And you can’t buy a Rolex at retail, the market is that hot, like it is for today’s superstars, but the rest of the high-priced wares… They’re a stretch financially, and many people do not want to make that stretch. Furthermore, how important is it to have a luxury good? The ace in the hole for concerts is they’re a unique experience, one and done, which come with bragging rights, but they are not the only experience that delivers this.

So, the economy’s effect on ticket demand…it’s murky.

But it’s clear that demand is sky high, driving ticket prices up, for an ever fewer number of acts.

And people have unlimited cash available to see these acts, but they may only want to see these acts.

And as far as building new acts that sustain, that become legacy acts, that’s become harder than ever to do. If for no other reason than it’s harder than ever to reach people in the marketplace, never mind on a regular basis.

Now in the old days, prior to the blue dot availability on Ticketmaster, the public had no information. We can now judge ticket demand just like we can judge the demand for recordings via the statistics on Spotify. This is the information era, and we’re not going back to a more opaque world.

As for cancellations, acts have always lied/made excuses when tickets don’t sell. It’s just that when this happens now, especially to more than one act, word of these cancellations can spread online and gain traction.

So…

7

The concert business has changed. Ticket prices are never coming down, because of the demand. As for lowering them for shows that aren’t doing boffo at the b.o…do you really want to spend hours listening to an act you don’t love, who might only have one track you know? No.

So there’s a peak. How many acts are at that peak and what is the exact demand.

And then there’s the issue of ticket price.

If the demand is there, which it is for many acts, the issue in pricing is not how to make it lower, but how do you make it high enough to squeeze out the secondary market, because despite all the consumer complaints, fans end up going, just to be in the building. You need to ignore the bitching. People bitch about the price of cars, but once they’ve spent north of 50k, most people will testify how much they love their automobile.

So the bottom of the market is ever more hollow.

And there are wannabe superstars who are playing bigger buildings than they should and pricing tickets too high.

But then there are acts that could play seemingly ad infinitum. Look at Harry Styles and Madison Square Garden. He’s doing thirty shows, with some tickets priced as low as fifty bucks. But it’s easy to spend four digits in the secondary market. And, once again, this is for THIRTY SHOWS!

The acts of yore never did thirty show residencies. Demand was not there. There were other acts of an equal status touring and the act would probably come to your neighborhood if you wanted to see them anyway. But how many Harry Styles’s are there? People are traveling from across the country, across the world to go… Forget ticket prices, they may just be a fraction of the overall spend.

They need to be in the building just that much.

Doesn’t matter that you don’t need to be in the building, that you don’t want to pay those prices, enough people do.

But when you go down the food chain, many people do not.

And the irony is when you go down far enough, tickets are not very price sensitive, people just don’t want to go. They see it as an off brand show, not a must-go. It’s the difference between a BMW or Mercedes and a Cadillac. Remember when Cadillac ruled the road? No more, the German cars were always better but now everybody knows and would rather spend more for something that’s a better driving experience that will impress people. Doesn’t matter what Cadillac constructs, it’s too late, they’ve squandered the company’s good will.

It’s the same with acts, assuming they had any good will to begin with.

This guy could be president.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA, don’t shoot the messenger!

You know I’m scrounging for podcasts that are interesting, I don’t like happy talk/joke talk between two hosts, and true crime has been overdone, but searching the Apple Podcasts app I came across this “New York Times” interview with Tucker Carlson…

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-does-tucker-carlson-really-believe-i-went-to-maine/id1200361736?i=1000765759854

Or watch:

Now I remember Tucker back in his bowtie days on CNN, before he was so self-satisfied. He got airtime before Jon Stewart got “Crossfire” canceled, by speaking the truth, that it was akin to pro wrestling and hurting America.

Now I’d like to tell you Jon Stewart could be president, and he’d be better than most of the Democratic candidates, he skewers the deserving every Monday night on Comedy Central, but Stewart skews negative, as do most Democrats. They’ll tell you how f*cked up things are, but they don’t focus too much on the positive, proffer solutions. Also, I’m sick and tired of celebrities being elected to office. Irrelevant of how you feel about Spencer Pratt, what ability, never mind history, does he have regarding public governance? Why are we putting unskilled people in skilled jobs?

Now I’m listening to Tucker on this podcast and…

The first thing I notice is how informed and balanced the host is, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, who I was not familiar with. One thing you’ve got to give the “Times” credit for is pushing aside oldsters and giving younger people a chance. And she was not histrionic, she was not auguring for argument, nor theatre, and therefore the tone was different from most of the political interviews we’re exposed to, not that she pulled her punches, she brought up all the criticisms of Carlson, but not in a gotcha way.

As for Carlson… He spoke slowly and…

This guy is smart. That’s one thing about Trump and his cabinet, these are not the best and the brightest. Furthermore, Carlson is seasoned, he can hit the ball back and forth over the net, he knows how to debate. And he’s so skilled, he  knows how to deflect when confronted with something that makes him look bad, he doesn’t become outraged and deny it, rather he says it’s a distraction from the real issue, which always comes down to economics.

Ain’t that the truth.

James Carville famously said it was the economy, stupid, and it still is. But what we get most is talk about trans women in sports and race and…those are significant issues, but are they as important as economics?

That’s Carlson’s position, which he keeps hammering. That irrelevant of color or creed, everybody wants to be able to put food on the table, ensure a good future for their children.

It ain’t difficult. But somehow the political class strays from this main target and focuses on the penumbra again and again and again.

And then Lulu asks Tucker about his son, who left his job with J.D. Vance, wanting to know if he was pushed or he jumped, implying it was the former.

Carlson says he does not know, that she should ask his son, that to the degree he knows his son jumped, however…

Carlson says he believes in an America where the status and power of the parents do not affect the trajectory of the children.

BINGO!

Everybody wants equal opportunity. We’re sick of the lucky sperm club getting a leg up from the get-go.

As for race… An issue, but should it supersede putting food on the table?

As for interviewing Nick Fuentes… How much influence does Fuentes have, and Carlson says Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are worse.

Now Carlson has been excoriated for interviewing Fuentes, but he says he interviews all kinds of people, should his guests be limited by philosophy?

Like I said, Carlson has a way of deflecting the criticism and…

He says he’s not running for president, but who is? Good luck finding someone who is passionate about J.D. Vance…who has flip-flopped from being against Trump to now doing his dirty work and even criticizing the Pope re theology.

Marco Rubio? Didn’t Trump call him “Little Marco” before giving him a cabinet job? Rubio is not seen as a force of nature, he’s perceived today as a technocrat who is eager for more responsibility/power.

As for Ted Cruz… Carlson eviscerates him, but one thing is for sure, he is unlikable.

Like Carlson himself?

When I first contemplated writing this, TikTok fed me this clip from SNL’s Weekend Update, Tucker Carlson on the Met Gala:

They nailed Carlson. This was as good as the vintage stuff from the seventies. Does everybody have Carlson’s number?

But he was the king of Fox, eclipsing everybody else. Driving the conversation. But he became too big for his britches and Murdoch fired him. But that’s the thing about Carlson, while occasionally self-deprecating, it’s evident he thinks he’s smarter than the rest of us.

But one thing is for sure, he’s got experience in the swamp. And it is a swamp, seemingly everybody not involved in politics is disillusioned with it.

Now I don’t agree with Carlson on his anti-Israel and isolationist views, and his anti-vax position is looney-tunes, but are we looking for someone who speaks plain English to the people? No, let me change that, is someone who speaks truth appealing to the people? Carlson is a better Trump. Trump identified a disillusioned public, it’s just that he’s a nincompoop, or as John Mulaney said, a horse in the hospital.

I’m in a unique position in that I hear from both sides constantly. Which it seems very few do. They’re baked into their positions and only hang with those who agree with them. Whereas every day I turn on my computer and I’ve got right wingers going wild on me and oftentimes left wingers too. I’m stunned when I read the news or watch the commentariat on TV and it’s clear to me they’ve got no idea what the public thinks, because they don’t interact with the public. And it is not as simple as reporting on it, you’ve got to LIVE IT!

And you live it online, an entire world that the legacy media and oldsters have contempt for.

As for Carlson’s excommunication from Fox and his present footprint…

Well, a lot has changed since Tucker was fired from Fox in 2023. There has been ongoing flattening of the media landscape, the legacy media  means less, people get their information from podcasts and… In other words, the world Tucker Carlson was exiled to became the main show, instead of the sideshow.

And legacy media can’t stop reporting on him, as evidenced by this “New York Times” interview. Carlson’s actual reach isn’t de minimis, but it’s far from huge, yet it’s the external outlets amplifying him and his message that keep him up front, as part of the discourse.

Now if you’ve made it this far, you’re probably laughing. But I’m telling you, if you listen to/watch this interview your perspective will be changed. What Carlson is saying is what most people want, a focus on economics and a separating of the wheat from the chaff, delineating what is truly important from what is not. Furthermore, despite complimenting Trump’s personality and saying he likes J.D. Vance, Carlson can align with some left wing/Democratic positions.

So just see this as a heads-up. If Carlson runs for president, and I think he will, he’s testing the waters at least, despite what he says, either he will run away with the Republican nomination or be voteless.

That’s what we learned about Kamala Harris, in the debates/primaries back in 2020. She came across as inauthentic, and didn’t win any delegates. But Biden said he was going to pick a woman as VP and chose her. God, couldn’t he just pick a woman without saying he was going to, it undercuts the effort, singles women out as being less than as opposed to equal.

Not that I want to get into identity politics…

Then again, we’ve gone too deep into identity politics and…

Who is the Democratic candidate? Newsom could win if he wasn’t from California, but he is. Other than Gavin?

And get Carlson on the debate stage and he’ll eat up his competitors, anybody other than Newsom, because not only is he educated on the issues, he can be calm and measured, and is unafraid of alienating people, he calls ’em the way he sees ’em, which almost no politician does.

I would have written none of this if I hadn’t listened to this interview. Please do so, it will open your eyes.

I couldn’t figure out if this was lowbrow…

Now I don’t have to read highbrow literature, but sometimes you’re reading a book and you realize it’s only written for plot, to appeal to a certain demographic, usually women, who sustain the fiction field, and I’ve gotten halfway through books and realized I’ve wasted my time and I didn’t want to do this once again.

But one thing was for sure, this is the kind of book I like. One about people, their lives, their stories. Ultimately, that’s all that matters.

So I decided to do research. I found out Cynthia D’Aprix Sweeney had written two best sellers before this, one “The Nest,” which rang a bell, but I wasn’t sure if it was the book or the TV show and…

I was scouring the Amazon page. Read enough books and you know what to look for. First, the star rating…anything under four and you should be wary, sometimes it’s just too difficult or too intellectual for the average reader, but the star system is rarely wrong. And “Lake Effect” had four and a half stars, which means some people REALLY liked it. Assuming the book is worthy, it’s got four stars, maybe three and a half. But if it’s got four and a half, it’s worth taking notice. Then again, that just means people liked the book, not that it’s good.

So then you scroll down the page and look for the reviews… If there are none, or they’re from non-literary publications, I’m wary. And in this case, you got quotes… The blurbs other writers and personalities deliver to help author friends and I just ignore them.

But going down the page further I did see reviews from “People” and “Real Simple”… They indicate lowbrow. But, “Lake Effect” was an Amazon “Editors’ pick,” and that’s a high bar, dreck is not anointed this way.

And as I’ve said before, I read these reviews and reserve these books on Libby and I can never remember what inspired me to get them from the library when they finally arrive weeks later. But doing one more Google before I wrote this, my inspiration came up, a March 4th review in the “New York Times”: 

“Cynthia D’Aprix Sweeney’s new novel, ‘Lake Effect,’ is the latest in a specific contemporary subgenre: ‘Four Adult Siblings Reconvene to Rehash Their Privileged but Fraught Adolescence.'”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/04/books/review/cynthia-daprix-sweeney-lake-effect.html

That’s my kind of book, families, their interactions as the years go by…

So after learning that “Lake Effect” was an Amazon “Editors’ pick” I decided to continue reading it. And I couldn’t put it down. It called out to me. I looked forward to the end of the day when I could spend time reading it.

And I’m angry that it’s over. And I wouldn’t call it literature, but I wouldn’t call it lowbrow either.

And I’m slightly wary of recommending it, because men statistically prefer nonfiction and if a book involves feelings…

Then again, despite all the stories about aggressive men, the truth is most guys are not like this. Most are normal, average, wouldn’t hurt a flea. Then again, they may not look like an Adonis and they may not have the gumption to even approach you… And that thing about women wanting bad guys, there’s some truth to that. But all this is to say that I know there are some men who will dig “Lake Effect,” but I’m not sure which ones.

Now unlike the vaunted literature of today’s book business, “Lake Effect” is not laden with description, a lot happens and it is very readable. It never gets bogged down.

And it’s unpredictable.

Most books, movies and TV show are. If for no other reason than they want you to feel good, warm after experiencing them, so you’ll tell others about them.

Maybe you’ve read the news about the unproduced Larry David screenplay:

“After 43 Years, an Unproduced Larry David Script Surfaces Online”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/08/arts/larry-david-prognosis-negative.html

It wasn’t produced, the agency notes said:

“‘The basic problem, it was stated, was that the main character, Leo, is not at all likable.'”

Ultimately tropes in the screenplay were used to great success in “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” but the truth is Hollywood and publishers don’t want to risk offending you, making you feel bad, they want you to feel GOOD!

Not that you’ll feel bad after finishing “Lake Effect,” it’s just that the characters don’t always do what you’d expect them to, and not everybody is redeemed. And that’s one of the reasons the book is so good. Just when you think someone is going to wake up and make the conventional right choice, they don’t. And this unpredictability is what keeps you turning pages.

Life doesn’t work out like it does in movies. Nor books. But you find it hard to accept when yours doesn’t. You’re doing the right thing, making good choices, and then you know an action will or has hurt someone and how do you metabolize that? Do you go with your gut first, or do you do what’s right? And how long do you hold a grudge?

These are everyday questions and they’re in this book.

Just another family. This might not be your story, but you know these people, you’ve come across them, they could be your best friends.

I really enjoyed the experience of reading “Lake Effect.” I don’t know enough of Cynthia D’Aprix Sweeney’s background and appeal to tell you whether she’s endorsed or derided. That’s a factor in many people’s choices of what entertainment they consume.

And I thought of digging deeper to get a read, and I started that Google and came across the “New York Times” review and…

It’s extremely difficult to get a book reviewed in the “New York Times.” There are so many and room for so few. They usually just review what is extremely notable, whether it be good or bad, books by famous writers or even celebrities, and those which deserve notice.

So since it was reviewed by the “Times”…a review I did not read, because these reviews are not for readers, but for the industry and other writers, they’re oftentimes literary works in themselves, and they reveal plot points not even thinking about the reading experience…I’m gonna come down on the side of this book is worth the time.

Assuming this kind of book appeals to you.

Because it certainly does to me.