I took a chance, I took a shot
And you might think I’m bulletproof, but I’m not

Silence. It’s always worst in a crisis.  Just ask Tiger Woods.

Johnson & Johnson wrote the book on this, with Tylenol.  Remember the capsules with cyanide?  No? Proves the point.  J&J admitted fault, even though the company was not responsible, executed a fix and life went on.

It’s a veritable conflagration.  Not only online.  But in the mainstream news.

The "New York Times" took a swing at Taylor Swift, they said her singing was "painfully out of tune".

In an article on the Oscars, Patrick Goldstein of the "Los Angeles Times" excoriated her: "Even though Swift was the big winner Sunday night, she has largely been derided by critics and is viewed as a youthful enthusiasm, not a serious artist. (If you watched the show, you may have noticed that while she has lovely hair, she can barely sing.)"

The non-music outlet known as MTV is riding Swift’s performance to ratings just like the channel rode the derided "Jersey Shore" controversy.  Even taking the unprecedented action of printing blowback from haters:

Taylor Swift Backlash: Readers Weigh In

And what do we get from Taylor Swift’s camp?  She’s in Australia.  Scott Borchetta bit back lamely once, and then was indignant in the "Tennessean":

Updated: Taylor Swift gets mixed reviews at Grammys

You could write a book on how
To ruin someone’s perfect day

This is all wrong.  You don’t bite back this way, you’re contrite, go on the offensive by endearing yourself to consumers.

Taylor Swift should not be hiding Down Under, she should jet back to the U.S., do "Oprah", reveal secrets, do a town hall…  You know major news outlets are interested, because this is a major story. Except maybe to those in the eye of the hurricane, where the calm does not reflect the winds outside.

Scott Swift, Taylor’s dad, I know you’re reading this.  You’re a smart guy.  I know you’re protective of your daughter, I know you believe in her, why don’t you help her?

Call Larry Solters.  Call another crisis publicity agent.  To manage the story.  Because I’d say you’ve lost control of it, no, I’d say you never had a hold on it, and it’s time you did.

Everything’s got to come out.  Honesty is the best policy in a crisis.  We’re a forgiving country.  Tell the backstory, the true story, of how Scott spent so much to make Taylor happen.  Not as a tale of millions spent, but as a father doing everything to make his daughter’s dream come true.  Release video of Taylor singing at twelve.  Show the arc of her development.  Make the Grammy appearance part of her development.  Instead of the end of the story…

This is serious business.  Just look at John Edwards.  The aforementioned Tiger Woods.  There are people who specialize in handling these crises.  Hire one.  Because the team in control of Taylor Swift’s image is woefully overmatched.  I wouldn’t call it a public relations offensive but an explanation, a bringing of the public into Taylor Swift’s heart.  Don’t throw stones at your enemies, hug them tight, by admitting your faults and showing that you’re reasonable, and dedicated to solving the problem.

I take a step back, let you go
I told you I’m not bulletproof
Now you know

I’m sure Taylor’s hurt.  Hell, if she’s this upset about a boy in "Tell Me Why", imagine what it’s like breaking up with your career?

And when you get dumped, your friends rally ’round.  They’ll rally ’round Taylor if she cries, tells how she tried, dedicates herself to doing better in the future and allows the public to embrace her.

"Tell Me Why"

After breaking my leg, I moved into a house on Peony Way, in the cinder block suburbs, 103 streets south of the Temple, in the heart of The City of Salt.

That’s what we called it.  We outsiders, we Jews, "The City of Salt".  It gave us some distance, prevented us from being swallowed up by the Mormons, who were out to convert you at every turn, even at Snowbird.  Reminds me of that guy New York George, who opened a restaurant in the shade of the Scientology Center.  Wasn’t long until George too was a Scientologist…it was good for business.

But I wasn’t supposed to be down in the flats, I was supposed to be up in the canyon, Little Cottonwood Canyon, to be exact, I’d lined up a job being a waiter at the Goldminer’s Daughter not long after Labor Day.  But I’d broken my leg in the interim, and not only did I lose a few months of the ski season, I forfeited the gig too.  But hunting down my old Middlebury buddy who’d followed me out to Utah, I learned that he’d quit his job at the Alta Peruvian and moved in with two renegades in Sandy, on the aforementioned Peony Way, where ski bums stood out like alta kachers at a rap show.  Big Wheels screamed down the street as we hid inside with our multiple pairs of skis and very little cash.  But we knew what was important, sliding down the hill, we were not in pursuit of cash.  At least that’s what I thought, until the second winter when too many people stopped skiing and started working day jobs, even for the phone company, then I knew I had to get out of there.

But after selling hot dogs up at Snowbird during the day, and skiing The Greatest Snow On Earth, I came home to a house with a couple maybe in love, at least they were sleeping together, who watched TV each and every night.  Their set was black and white, seeming to deny their interest, but they were addicted.  And after living in Vermont with no reception for four years, I was not, I’d broken the habit.

So I ended up retreating to my favorite haunt.  The library.

It was brand new.  About forty streets north.  You could check out cassettes, which I did, returning them after two weeks and then removing them once again, who else would want the latest Todd Rundgren opus?

But I also combed the stacks.  Looking for something to read, something to placate my loneliness, this was still months before I finally found my people, on a snowy night downtown, plotting to move to Mammoth Lakes for the spring while "Physical Graffiti" blared in the background.

I checked out Bob Greene’s Alice Cooper book.  I enjoyed that.

And then I kept combing the aisles.  I started to read Salinger.  I’m not sure why, could I have just stumbled upon it?  I don’t recall.

Not "The Catcher In The Rye".  We’d read that in high school.  Liked it, didn’t love it.  But "Nine Stories" and "Franny and Zooey".  And "Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: An Introduction". I’d never even heard of the last.  And I read it last.  And it kind of left me hanging.  I wanted more, but there was no more.

Salinger stopped writing.

And America could not tolerate it.  The public felt it was entitled to more.  Salinger owed them.

The obits have been fascinating.  Stunning to read that "The Catcher In The Rye", the definitive classic, was panned upon release by so many.  But even more interesting has been the insight into the man. Not the cranky old sot who wouldn’t deliver, but the real Jerry.

He had no tolerance for phonies.

In other words, Salinger was a character in his books.  Keeping the straight world at arm’s length. Incorruptible.

We all start off incorruptible.  But then that fades.  We cheat on tests to get good grades to insure we go to the right college so we can get into the right graduate school and rape and plunder.  And since you’ve got to have the totems, the car and the house, and ultimately the family too, you end up being on the hook for a lot of bread, you can’t walk away, you start rationalizing your life, criticizing those who don’t agree with you, you sacrificed, they should too.

Or else you’re an outsider who trades solely on that, creating nothing of value, but putting down the works of others.  You know them.  The black jeans crowd.  Nothing is ever hip enough for them, except for stuff you just can’t comprehend.  As Salinger said, "A community of seriously hip observers is a scary and depressing thing."

So either you can sell out or be a nerd.  It’s hard to be an individual.  In a world that’s sorting out your totals constantly.  Are you a winner or a loser?  It’s either/or.  Pick a side.  But what if you don’t want to pick a side?

In Lillian Ross’ remembrance in the "New Yorker", she quotes Salinger’s letter stating: "I think I despise every school and college in the world, but the ones with the best reputation first."

I don’t get higher education.  Who cares about those subjects?  Or else they’re teaching something cool that’s unteachable, like the music business.  How do you teach that?  You’ve got to EXPERIENCE that!

Elite schooling teaches you how the system works, you’re thrown in with a bunch of other sharp people, but you don’t learn much in the classroom.  But that’s not something you can say in the halls of academia, with all the tenured professors and suck-ups, thinking that if they just get straight A’s, their lives will work.

And now I’m sounding like Salinger.  Bitter by your judgment, but angry that true heart, genuine emotions don’t have much currency in modern life.  It’s all fake.  Lying so you can play the corporate game like a pinball machine.  You win, and then you want to shoot yourself?

I haven’t read a lick of Salinger in decades, not since I returned that last volume to that library in Utah.  I don’t reread, makes no sense, not with so much more to still read.  But that doesn’t mean I forget what I read.  What I remember most is the way it made me feel.  Reading Salinger made me feel human, warm, like the game I had a hard time playing, of winners and losers on the economic totem pole, didn’t make much sense.  Real life was about being open, hopeful, taking risks, sharing joy.  Being honest.

That’s what’s gone today, honesty.  If you’re honest, you’re outside the game, and if you’re not playing the game, you’re judging us, so we judge you in turn, you’re a loser.  But not necessarily.

We revere those who refuse to play the game, who work hard, search out their own path.  We call these people artists.  They’re in short supply.  But we recognize them when we see them, we flock to them, we want more.

We always wanted more Salinger.

We still want more Lennon.

We don’t want much of the hit parade.

1. Book Pricing

Amazon blinked.

In case you missed the story, over the weekend Macmillan drew a line in the sand.  No more devaluing our product, no more underselling to boost Kindle market share, we’re not going to let you sell electronic books for $9.99 upon date of hard cover publication.

Oh YEAH??

Well, yeah.  You should have seen the mealy-mouthed Amazon explanation when the retailer caved.  Something about Macmillan having a "monopoly over their own titles"?  Huh?

The record companies want to raise prices at the iTunes Store and Steve Jobs goes public and calls them greedy.  Jeff Bezos just caves.

But the truly interesting point is Macmillan’s desire to stand up to Amazon.  It was emboldened by a product that has not yet hit the shelves, the iPad.  Steve Jobs said electronic books would be a straight 70/30 deal, in favor of the publisher.  And books would cost $12.99 to $14.99.

Overnight, with an unreleased product, Steve Jobs changed electronic book pricing.  Wow.

(Meanwhile, emboldened by Macmillan, HarperCollins is now angling for a better e-book deal with Amazon, which Murdoch said today is ready to renegotiate. Meanwhile, Murdoch, who controls HarperCollins, referenced Apple’s higher prices in his criticism of Amazon.  So, Bezos takes his finger out of the dike and the water comes rushing in, just like that, all because Jeff is afraid of Steve Jobs and Apple.)

2. Flash

You should have seen the blogosphere.  Up in arms.  The iPad doesn’t support FLASH!

And it doesn’t have a camera, which the ultimately released edition is now rumored to include, and there’s no USB…

But Flash?  How can we run the Internet without Flash?  It’s the standard!  Hell, you could see the blank spot in the "New York Times" page Jobs pulled up in the demo, where the movie was supposed to go.  The iPad can’t triumph…  Maybe you can get away without Flash on the tiny iPhone, but not the iPad!

Then Jobs struck back.  Trumping the naysayers by saying that Flash sucks.  That it’s the main reason Safari crashes on computers.

Mmm…  That’s right.

I don’t know if you’re on a Mac, but it never crashes, not only the whole computer, but any individual program, except for occasionally Microsoft Office, where so many cooks ended up releasing a half-baked product, and Safari.

Yes, it’s not frequent, but Safari crashes.  Or hangs.  And it’s always the damn movie.  It’s always Flash.

Suddenly, online, there’s all this hoopla about HTML5.  How it and H.264 are better than Flash and are going to replace it.

Wow.  Talk about turning lemons into lemonade.  Steve Jobs is so powerful he can change the STANDARD!  Then again, this is not the first time he’s done it.  Remember the iMac without the floppy drive, with USB connectors?  Seen a floppy drive recently?  Isn’t USB the standard (is the proprietary iPod connector about to be the new standard?)

3. AT&T

There were audible groans in the auditorium when Jobs stated that high speed cellular connections for the iPad would be through AT&T.  The groans may not have made the official video, but do you wonder why the stream doesn’t appear until hours later?  It’s got to be cleaned up!

AT&T has shitty 3G coverage.  Just watch TV and see the maps.  Yes, AT&T’s 3G is extremely fast, WHERE YOU CAN GET IT!  Which is in the metropolis, assuming the system’s not overloaded.

But today it was revealed that Verizon just didn’t bid high enough.  That AT&T put its money where its mouth was.  Coming up with a low-priced service plan that other providers weren’t about to match.  Giving AT&T a monopoly on Apple products and time to finally get those infrastructure changes in place before everybody abandons the legacy carrier.

All this and the iPad has not yet been released.

It seems the world comes down to two kinds of people.  Those who are afraid of Apple and those who are not.  Verizon is not.  But they just reported shitty numbers.  Amazon is.

You see companies believe that Steve Jobs is in control of a giant tribe, who will follow him anywhere.  So far, Mr. Jobs has not revealed a compelling reason to purchase an iPad.  But that doesn’t mean he won’t.  And when he does, when the tribe has acquired it and harangued newbies to join the team, do you want to be left out?

This is utterly amazing.  We’ve got a President, a whole cadre of elected officials whored out to corporations, their approval ratings in the dumper. But we’ve got a businessman (aren’t we supposed to hate businessmen?) who appears beholden to no one, in search of excellence, willing to do it his way at the risk that potential partners might take the highway.  When so-called musical "artists" are eager to sell out, do you wonder why Steve Jobs has got such a throng of admirers, such a posse?  To the point where an unreleased product changes the course of business?

AT&T would be in the same boat as Sprint without the iPhone and now the iPad, hemorrhaging customers.

Adobe felt it won the war of Web video and rested on its laurels, just like Microsoft.  We’ve got dominant market share, Flash is the standard, you have to use our product…huh?  Especially if the platform changes.  Microsoft may own the desktop, although their share is slipping, but it’s losing tremendous ground in the new medium, mobile devices.  Hell who’d want Windows Mobile after using Windows on their desktop?  And it’s not like Windows Mobile has gotten good reviews.

And if you think physical books are the way of the future, then you’re unaware of the towns that no longer sport a bookstore, like Laredo, TX, you’re unaware that library hours are shortening, that Borders is on the bring of bankruptcy and Barnes & Noble might soon be taken over.  The publishers are too ignorant to even see what’s going on.  They’re running into the arms of Apple to avoid Amazon.  Who do you need to fear most? Just look at a Kindle and an iPad and you’ve got your answer.  Publishers are doing BETTER by selling e-books on Amazon today, they’re getting physical book wholesale!  But fearful of $9.99 becoming the pricing standard, they’re taking a worse deal from Apple.  Retailing the books at higher prices, but getting less in return.  But how about when you want to raise prices again?  Look what happened with the record companies.  Suddenly, Apple had all the power, not them.

But publishers are shortsighted.

And Amazon is weak.

AT&T realized it’s better to get on the Jobs bandwagon than not.

And the public wants cheaper prices, or it steals.  Not that Steve Jobs really cares, he’s in the hardware business… 

There was a space in my bookcase where I kept my cash, waiting for four bucks to accumulate…then I went and bought an album, which I played again and again until I knew every cut, until I accumulated enough money to buy another, when I repeated the process.  You see, music was scarce.

Now it’s plentiful.

Albums didn’t always rule.  Actually, I was one of the few people addicted to the long player back in the early sixties, most people bought singles.  Why buy the album?  You really only wanted the hit.  But somewhere in the Beatles’ ascendance, that changed. Maybe with the single-less "Rubber Soul", certainly with "Sgt. Pepper".  The album was a statement.  Suddenly everyone was buying albums, listening to FM radio to find out what to purchase, to experiment with.  And then when these acts came to town, you went to see them.  Tickets were cheaper, it was little more expensive than seeing a movie…but that’s a whole ‘nother issue. No, it’s not.  Let’s ask that question, what makes someone go to the show?

Assuming it’s not a has-been, not a classic rock act, what motivates the average person to overpay to go to the extravaganza? The hit.  People didn’t know much more than the Spice Girls’ "Wannabe", they were caught up in the hoopla.  And hoopla still exists, especially if you’re like GaGa and put together a string of hits, but how about everybody else?  How many people can have that many hits?  How many can have hits at all?

The listening experience is completely different from the sixties.  Today, there’s too much choice.  I’m not starving for music at home, I’ve got a plethora of services, but anyone can listen to everything via MySpace/YouTube/LaLa.  What are they going to listen to?  Are they going to listen to the album?

Ever marvel at how a youngster multitasks, appears not to be overwhelmed by media?  That’s because kids today are only interested in great.  They’ll dig deep on something that fascinates them, otherwise they’re just interested in the headlines.

There’s too much information.  And the way today’s youngsters deal with it is to separate the wheat from the chaff.  They’re interested in the hit single, but they’re not about to pay ten plus bucks for an album and play it over and over again to get it, that paradigm is THROUGH!

Really, don’t see the album/single debate from the perspective of the artist, certainly don’t look at it from the perspective of the record label, look at it from the perspective of the listener.

The listener wants great music.  He’s building a library, a playlist, it’s akin to the early sixties, when singles ruled.  Why buy the album?  What are the odds the rest of the tracks are great?  Very low.  Furthermore, the album’s not a deal.  At least in the sixties there was an economic incentive to purchase the long player, that doesn’t exist in the digital world.  Maybe if the album were five bucks instead of ten plus.  But then people still wouldn’t listen to anything but the hit anyway.

In other words, the game we’ve been playing has died.  Almost completely.  And it’s only going to get worse.  And if you’re playing the old way and bitching, you’re missing the point.

If you’re satisfied with the audience you’ve got and you want to satiate this small coterie with a collection of ten tracks, be my guest.  But those not fans will ignore your long player, they don’t care, it’s too much music to penetrate, they’re not convinced it’s worth dedicating the TIME, if a single cut bubbles to the surface they’re interested, but they’re not going on a fruitless hunt.

So, if you’re making an album as an economic vehicle, a product that can blow up and rain coin into your pocketbook, you’re screwed, it just doesn’t happen like that anymore, because almost no one has got the time to listen to anything but your best work.

A head-scratcher, I know.  I’ll give you an example.

I love One eskimO’s "Kandi".  I’ve listened to it at least fifty times, the same way we wore out singles in the days of yore.  But have I played the entire album?  Oh, I gave it a shot.  But it doesn’t sound anything like "Kandi".  What I mean is it doesn’t have that sly R&B sound, and with thousands of other cuts on my iPod, I gravitate to them.  In other words, our collections today are not albums, but a playlist of singles.

Now this has huge impact on the business, everything from acts to labels to concert promoters.

Acts are going to inherently make less money, after all, people want less of their music.  And those who are interested in a complete album are very few.  Those days of ten million people buying the album just to get the single are done, they died with Napster, they’re never coming back, the cherry-picking world of iTunes rules.  If you want to last, you’ve got to super-serve a small coterie of fans.  Don’t tour the world, don’t go for world domination, just satisfy your fans, because a fan will come see you live, will buy your merch.

Record labels…  Suddenly, they’ve lost most of their revenue, and it’s never coming back.  You may be selling many more of one, but no one cares about the other nine cuts on the album.  You shouldn’t even make them, shouldn’t even bother.  Maximize revenue from the single.  And scale back, knowing that the glory days are done.

Concert promoters?  Who’s going to come see the acts?  In quantity?

That’s one reason festivals rule.  You get to graze.  Most of these acts can play to very few solo, aggregate them and people get to sample, immediately giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down.  Your festival appearance is crucial, you must kill, this is where you convince people to come see you again, but odds are most people won’t.

But none of this is bad for music.  In the aggregate, people are listening to more music than ever before.  It’s just that rather than being limited to three networks, there are five hundred channels.  Rather than being limited to what’s in the theatre, they’ve got Netflix.

And when the CD dies?  And no matter what you read, it’s on its way out, there’s not going to be anywhere to buy it, sure there will be some indie stores, but so many of those have died, people will start wondering why you ever aggregated ten tracks together, the same way a kid today doesn’t understand an 8-track or a cassette.  Once the physical format dies, the whole construct is kaput.

So what’s a new act to do?

First question its dedication.  Do you want to play in this new world?  Where a few beat-infused tracks can get airplay on Top Forty and succeed but people don’t have to listen to Top Forty?  Are you willing to work really hard for far less, knowing that mass success is not in the offing?

If so, woodshed until you create that one listen track.  That’s your main hope of your music spreading.  A cut so good people will tell others about it.  Will put it in their playlist and keep it in rotation.  Then you’ve got to come up with another.  And another.

And chances are, you can’t.

Which is why you read about scenes in Brooklyn and the bands never reach ubiquity, because the average joe just doesn’t care, doesn’t get it.  But people like Owl City’s "Fireflies".  As for the rest of the album, do you even need it?

This isn’t about Apple.  This isn’t about the labels.  It’s not about the acts.  It’s about the audience.  We’ve got incredible shit detectors.  More music at our fingertips than we can ever listen to.  And believe me, we want to listen.  But only to what’s great. Can you blame us?