This business about the Hold Steady not having any groupies seems tragic to me -- there are many worse bands out there, and not very many better ones. Surely they deserve a groupie or two.
« Out of Touch | Main | Requests Thread »
Groupies Wanted
29 Jun 2008 03:53 pm
Comments (45)
Given the Hold Steady's subject matter, you'd think that at least a few skanky girls with hearts of gold from Minnesota would be following them around...
I noticed something the last time I went to a Hold Steady show (at Prospect Park last summer) --- I'm 22, and usually this makes me slightly above the average age at concerts. At the Hold Steady show, it seemed like me and my friends were the youngest people there by about 5 years. It was mostly 30ish hipsters, not college kids. I can't recall how the demographics of the other concert of theirs I went to were (I was too drunk).
Maybe their lack of groupies has to do with the older bent of their audience.
Chickenhawk?
Chickenhawk?
a Hold Steady show (at Prospect Park last summer)
Assuming this is the Prospect Park in Brooklyn we're talking about: the demographics at every show I've seen there have skewed heavily toward 30ish (and up) hipsters (often with their kids). As a control, you might want to watch the same band at Webster Hall and see if the same crowd shows up.
Last time I was at a Hold Steady show (in April, in Minneapolis), my group and the band ended up at the same dingy dive (Grumpy's, on Washington). Just a few of them, at a corner table, with a few friends. Very chill guys. I bought them a round at one point, I think. Definately no groupies to be found.
The Hold Steady seems like one of those bands that SHOULDN'T be hurt by a leak of their record in advance of its release (as discussed in the article). I'm one of the people who downloaded a leaked copy of it as soon as I could find one, and I'll be at the record store the morning it comes out, waiting to get my hands on a CD-quality recording (not to mention the two bonus tracks).
My goal this summer is to save up enough money to take a road trip in which I can listen to all four THS CDs in a row, to see if I can't glean some new meaning or picture out of the never-ending story Finn is telling.
(And if you think the new record isn't carrying on the same Holly story from Separation Sunday, that's because you're not paying enough attention.)
"...people who know better are using the Internet to steal... Stop, thief."
Totally. I was gonna download this album, but after reading this article, I'm convinced! I'll buy it, using the imaginary income I earned from the hypothetical editing job that wasn't outsourced to India four weeks before I applied.
The internet is soooo unfair to musicians.
I'll buy it, using the imaginary income I earned from the hypothetical editing job that wasn't outsourced to India four weeks before I applied.
Yes, of course. Since you perceive yourself as having been wronged by outsourcing, it's completely justifiable for you to deprive the Hold Steady of their royalties.
MATT PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE NEW SY HERSH ARTICLE WE NEED YOU AND ANDREW ON THIS RIGHT AWAY.
Yes, of course. Since you perceive yourself as having been wronged by outsourcing, it's completely justifiable for you to deprive the Hold Steady of their royalties.
LOL.
No, the point I was trying to make is the game has changed. If you're upset because your twentieth-century business models aren't bringing you twenty-first century profits, maybe you need a better strategy than calling the wahmbulance.
FTR, this isn't academic to me. I'm an artist myself, and while my industry is about ten years away from collapse (as opposed to the music industry, which is dying as we speak), I'm constructing my career based on the expectations that things are changing. I'm trying to use communication technology to promote my work, and constructing revenue sources that exist even with the expectation of piracy.
An album leak can promote a record. It can get your album into the hands of people who will broadcast it to the public. Not everybody downloads music. But those who do tend to know more about it than most. These are the people that average record-buyers rely on for their new selections.
I never heard of the Hold Steady before today. When I get home tonight, I'm stealing their music. If I like it, next time they come to town I'll prolly drop $40 on seeing them live. That's a new fan that wouldn't exist w/o file sharing.
An even better example of this is the new Girl Talk album. I've probably told thirty people about that record in the four days I've had it. Of those, ONE person had heard of GT before. I just built his audience. Let's say there's 500 people like me. That's 15,000 new fans. And the album won't even be in stores until September!
That's how you build hype. GT's got a new fan base, some of whom will buy the record, some of whom will attend concerts and buy merch. It's all because of the internet, and free music distribution.
Not to mention, how much do you think it costs to make an album these days? You don't need to book expensive studio time, because the availability of recording equipment has flatten costs. You don't need to pay for engineers earning M.D.-like salaries, b/c anyone can produce music on ProTools. You don't need to pay for shipping and manufacturing, b/c you can distribute over the internet. And since you don't need to sign with a major label, you can keep SUBSTANTIALLY more of your gross revenue.
The game has changed. Smart artists will adapt and prosper, weak artists will fall off. The cream always rises.
Groupies are a tacky tradition for tacky bands. They aren't a common phenomenon in indie and punk rock circles, where they even allow actual women on the stage like they're performers and everything. To paraphrase something Iggy Pop said, in the old days a woman could look at the rock star and the best she could think was, "I want to fuck him." Now she can look at him and say, "I want to be him." With the latter option open, the tradition of groupies shrivels on the vine. Boo-hoo---no one to sell for a 6 pack to another band.
I have no firsthand knowledge, but I'd be willing to bad that indie/punk/whatever bands still do quite well with the ladies. They may not think of themselves as groupies, but I'm sure there are women who go to the show and subsequently have casual sex with a band member. Otherwise, why are people still becoming musicians?
I want to know how many groupies the Jonas Brothers have. One thing I am quite certain of-- despite the marketing campaign, the number is definitely not zero. (Remember when Britney claimed to be a virgin?)
You think these guys have trouble getting groupies?
What about poor Jim Corr and his backing musicians, Anto Drennan, Keith Duffy, Jason Duffy, and Kieran Keily?
The Corrs fans are either men or lesbians!
Read this comedy bit from The Chaser:
Bloke in The Corrs accepts he may not be reason for band's popularity
http://www.chaser.com.au/content/view/1476/101/
Money Quotes:
"We were filling large stadiums, and I put it all down to me," he said. "I got the feeling the other three were really just riding on my name. So, yeah, there was a lot of pressure on me each night to please the fans - most of whom, for some reason, were young screaming men. I just assumed we had a big gay following."
[Note for idiots: Joke! Joke!]
I was at that show. Andy Kindler joined them on stage for the last song. Who needs groupies when you have alt-comedians?
Here's the thing about The Hold Steady: All their stuff sounds the same!!! I mean, really. Not trying to dis the fans - or the band, for that matter - but once you've heard a handful of Hold Steady songs, you've heard them all. And that's the risk you take if you worship at the altar of bluesy, East Coast-bar band aesthetics. Don't get me wrong, The Hold Steady are nice atmospheric music when you walk into your favorite neighborhood bar, but the accolades they're constantly receiving, I think, are more due to the fact that music writers tend to be aging, paunchy hipsters (much like the band members themselves!), than with any sort of transcendence in their music.
Well, at least they have a legion of hipster male groupies, unlike when they were called Lifter Puller, from Minnesota, and 40 times better.
Don't even get me started on the Yah Mo's and !!!
Not to mention, how much do you think it costs to make an album these days? You don't need to book expensive studio time, because the availability of recording equipment has flatten costs. You don't need to pay for engineers earning M.D.-like salaries, b/c anyone can produce music on ProTools.
The internets being the internets, there's some pretty stiff competition, but this is probably the most ignorant comment I've seen all weekend.
The internets being the internets, there's some pretty stiff competition, but this is probably the most ignorant comment I've seen all weekend.
I'm incredibly hung over and not in top form today, but would you seriously argue that technology advancements over the last 20 years haven't leveled the post-production playing field, and in doing so driven down recording costs?
would you seriously argue that technology advancements over the last 20 years haven't leveled the post-production playing field, and in doing so driven down recording costs?
Basically, yes. For anything involving acoustic instruments, recording costs have not fallen one bit.
You can record a great-sounding all-electronic record in your bedroom. But if you need to record any kind of acoustic instrument at all (including drums and vocals), unless "sounds like it was recorded in someone dude's bedroom" is part of your vibe, you need to go into a real recording studio and work with a real recording engineer who knows what the fuck he's doing.
would you seriously argue that technology advancements over the last 20 years haven't leveled the post-production playing field, and in doing so driven down recording costs?
Basically, yes. For anything involving acoustic instruments, recording costs have not fallen one bit.
You can record a great-sounding all-electronic record in your bedroom. But if you need to record anything acoustically (including drums and vocals), unless "sounds like it was recorded in some dude's bedroom" is an integral part of your vibe, you do actually need to go into a real recording studio and work with a real recording engineer who knows what the fuck he's doing.
What you are arguing is the equivalent of "Well, since anyone can buy a DV camera at Best Buy, and you don't have to build sets or props or go on location, you can just do everything with CGI, how much does it really cost to make a feature film these days?"
What you are arguing is the equivalent of "Well, since anyone can buy a DV camera at Best Buy, and you don't have to build sets or props or go on location, you can just do everything with CGI, how much does it really cost to make a feature film these days?"
From my understanding (and it's been a couple of years since I've done film production), the technical cost of filmmaking now is about 1/100 of what it was a decade ago. You're right, location/set costs are static--but compared to equipment, processing, etc., they're minor.
You can record a great-sounding all-electronic record in your bedroom. But if you need to record anything acoustically (including drums and vocals), unless "sounds like it was recorded in some dude's bedroom" is an integral part of your vibe, you do actually need to go into a real recording studio and work with a real recording engineer who knows what the fuck he's doing.
No doubt, but isn't there more of a middle ground nowadats?
One of my friends runs an independent sound post-production facility out of the second bedroom of her house. She's brilliant, and she has good connections, so she works a shit-ton, even within the industry. From my understanding, she basically started it up using her credit cards.
Obviously, recording has different spatial considerations than mixing, but aren't there any people like this in the music industry? Has the democratization of post-production technology, along with the shitloads of music-school graduates, led to a more folks running smaller studios for independent artists?
From my understanding (and it's been a couple of years since I've done film production), the technical cost of filmmaking now is about 1/100 of what it was a decade ago.
You'll notice that major-studio feature film budgets are up, not down.
What's happened is that the bang-for-buck ratio on the bottom end of the scale has drastically improved, and movies made on the cheap don't look as obviously cheap as they used to. But there's still no way a struggling independent filmmaker is going to be able to make a picture with anywhere near the spectacle and polish of, say, Iron Man, and the recording situation is roughly analogous. Yeah it's possible to make a record for, say, $10,000, but you're going up against big-name artists who (A) already have a big name, and (B) spent $200,000 on a record that sounds like it had $200,000 spent on it.
Has the democratization of post-production technology, along with the shitloads of music-school graduates, led to a more folks running smaller studios for independent artists?
Sure, there are definitely places you can go to edit and mix and master for, like, $350 a day instead of the $4000 a day it might cost you to do the same in a major studio. And that's a wonderful thing, to be sure. But you want to capture real acoustic sounds, you still have to pay the big bucks to track in a nice room with fancy microphones, and you still have to pay the big bucks for an experienced engineer who can help you get the sound you want quickly, so you don't waste your limited time in the nice room with the fancy microphones.
Okay, DJA, I hear you on that.
But let me ask you to comment on the topic I was trying to raise before: How does an artist proceed/make money in an era of file sharing?
I notice you've got what appears to be your entire catalog available for download on your website. Are you solely surviving off live performances? Do you feel that having your music freely available electronically hinders your ability to succeed as a musician? Or does it serves a promotional purpose that outweighs its costs?
scythia,
Under the 21st century business model you describe, what role if any do you envisage for a revenue stream of money paid in direct exchange for personal use of sound recordings (in mp3, CD, or whatever other format)?
As you describe it in the Girl Talk scenario, does anybody ever pay for a CD or mp3, or are all the revenue streams based upon touring and/or sales for use in commercials, movies, etc.?
Similarly, when a piece of recorded, non-public domain music is used in a commercial/movie/etc, would the benefit to the artist in terms of exposure justify the commercial/movie/etc's use of the recorded music without payment? If not, why is using recorded music to augment a commercial/movie/etc different from using recorded music just for personal listening?
I spend a decent amount of money on recorded music for personal listening, and would honestly love to be persuaded that it was ethical to download such music without paying for it regardless of the copyright holder's consent. If you can persuade me of that, you could save me a lot of money.
Yours,
jjw230
But let me ask you to comment on the topic I was trying to raise before: How does an artist proceed/make money in an era of file sharing?
Honestly: fucked if I know. I don't know if anyone really knows.
I don't come close to making a living with my band, although my case is a bit weird in that I have an unreasonably large group (18 musicians) so I mostly lose money on live performance, and touring is extremely impractical. So I do other things to pay the bills (music prep for Broadway, film, etc. mostly) and devote time to the band whenever I can.
We did do a Canadian mini-tour in January, up to the IAJE conference -- what was until recently the SXSW of jazz (until they went bankrupt). I couldn't afford to bring everybody up from NY, and so I filled a lot of slots with Canadian musicians. We raised a little bit of money for the tour from tax-deductible online donations (we are fiscally sponsored via Fractured Atlas) -- more than I expected, actually, and having that kind of generosity from fans was immensely encouraging. And we sold a few t-shirts on the road, which helped a bit. But mostly I took a huge soaking.
On the other hand... we made some new fans, opened some new doors, managed to start getting some XM Radio airplay, laid the groundwork for some festival gigs down the line... that kind of thing.
Anyway, the MP3s in our live audio archive are all recordings I made of our live gigs, using a little digital recorder and a couple of cheap capsule mics. We don't have a studio record yet (due to the cost issues I outlined above) so it's the best I can do at this point, and I'm totally fine giving it away since the cost for that kind of total bare-bones, unmixed live recording really is minimal, and the promotional benefits certainly far, far outweigh the costs. I am definitely a big fan of the technology and environment that allows me to do this.
Now, I recognize that trying to run a band this size is fundamentally ridiculous and quixotic. That said, we are doing okay, as far as such things go (apart from the whole not making any money thing). But there are certain doors that will remain closed to us until such time as we can afford to make a proper studio recording and release a physical CD, which I hope some people will buy but I fully expect to lose a ton more money on. But the gatekeepers of the music industry -- venues, reviewers, festivals, radio stations, booking agents, all the rest... are still weirdly old-fashioned, in a lot of ways. Having an actual CD on an actual record label is still (frustratingly) a basic prerequisite for legitimacy in a lot of quarters.
Under the 21st century business model you describe, what role if any do you envisage for a revenue stream of money paid in direct exchange for personal use of sound recordings (in mp3, CD, or whatever other format)?
As you describe it in the Girl Talk scenario, does anybody ever pay for a CD or mp3
Well, click through that link, dude. It asks you how much you want to pay. You can pay nothing, or something. It's worth finding out how many people paid something. When Radiohead pulled the same stunt, my understanding was that quite a few did.
John Rogers (who IMO thinks very clearly about the future of the entertainment industry) linked to a piece explaining how an artist could maintain revenue through a small core of devoted fans, while giving away content free to the masses. Over the next 20 years, I think you'll see artists succeed by cultivating fan bases like this, along with...
or are all the revenue streams based upon touring and/or sales for use in commercials, movies, etc.?
I think in the future, yes, this will prove to be the case, and the majority of artists' income will come from licensing agreements. Well-known artists will be able to use their name recognition to draw income, while lesser-known artists will have to ply their wares more directly.
As DJA notes above, the two need not be concurrent. An musician can do mercenary work by day and his own work by night. Much like my friend who operates local news cameras to support his short films, or another friend who writes ad copy by day, full-length plays by night, or another who entertains corporate gatherings to the income he's not getting doing indy theater.
Most artists have to work day jobs, myself included. What's changing is the way in which those who climb out of that state achieve independence.
At the risk of again sounding ignorant, as this isn't my industry--my understanding is that in the past major labels would send out A&Rs to discover new talent. So if you were in a band and an A&R thought you were marketable, you were plucked out of toil and given a record deal. Generally this would take the form of a large payment up-front with a contract saddled with benchmarks.
So, bands would get a bunch of money and quit their day jobs. Then the record would drop, and if it wasn't a hit, they would find that the rest of the money wasn't guaranteed. To keep from dwindling into bankruptcy, what would happen? Artists would have to tour extensively, just to break even. Sound familiar?
A lot of artists went broke this way. Many bands didn't make it five years.
In addition, the label would exercise creative control over the production process. Back in the day, a single would be enough to sell a record. So labels would encourage bands to create records with as many single-laden tracks as possible, and stock the rest of the album with filler. Innovation was discouraged, as the most probable way to get on the radio is to sound like everyone else on the radio.
I'm not a musician, so I have no right to say this, but I don't think the demise of this business model is a bad thing.
Similarly, when a piece of recorded, non-public domain music is used in a commercial/movie/etc, would the benefit to the artist in terms of exposure justify the commercial/movie/etc's use of the recorded music without payment? If not, why is using recorded music to augment a commercial/movie/etc different from using recorded music just for personal listening?
Well, I could get into "ethical" arguments about the big bad corporations, but the bottom line is that commercial use is demonstrative. If I use one of your songs in one of my movies, you can point to the movie and say "Hey, that's my song!" But you have no way of knowing what I have on my hard drive. So licensing agreements are enforceable in a way that personal use is not.
That's what I'm talking about here: reality. Not, "should people download music for free?" but "given the fact that people are downloading music for free, how do we as artists survive in a outmoded industrial framework?"
And that's what it is. Back in the 20th century, production and distribution costs were outrageously high, so labels were required for a band to get exposure. As the internet and other technological advances lower those costs (although as DJA says, they haven't made inroads on recording yet), labels become expendable--or at the very least, unprofitable.
And the industry reacts, and corrects itself. As artists on the cusp, we have to choose whether to tie ourselves to the old model, or gamble and invent a new one. The latter is more risky in the short term, but probably more sustainable in the long run.
In addition, as creative artists we're in the unique position of being both worker and product. Now that we're in the middle of an industrial revolution, we have a chance to seize the reigns of ownership. It takes more responsibility and business savvy, but it is a way for minor- to midrange artists to escape from serfdom and take control over their own creative output.
I spend a decent amount of money on recorded music for personal listening, and would honestly love to be persuaded that it was ethical to download such music without paying for it regardless of the copyright holder's consent. If you can persuade me of that, you could save me a lot of money.
Well, g, my advice to you is to do what you feel like doing.
Personally, I download literally everything, then delete the shit I don't like. Bands that I do like, I try to support. I promote them among my friends, on the internet, and get their name out in the zeitgeist as much as possible (I tend to go for underground shit, so just expanding name rec can be a step in the right direction).
I try to support my local scene, and if a Bay Area indie group puts out a record, I buy it if I can afford it. If it's major label I don't drop a dime.
When bands I like come to down, I support the shit of them. I see their shows, buy merch, maybe some rare cds or vinyl if they've got 'em. Touring's hella expensive so I doubt I do much but help them come close to breaking even, but it's all I can do.
Is it right? Probably not. But I'm a struggling artist myself, and my resources are limited. If I could download food, I wouldn't pay for that either.
DJA, FWIW, the tracks I listened to sounded great, almost studio quality. Of course, I'm listening over mp3, but still: you should buy your recording engineer a beer.
If I'm ever in the Apple, I'll try to catch one of your shows.
The answer: live (and "pre-recorded live") broadcast over the Internet.
Why tour when you can sit in a studio, play a couple times a week, broadcast it live to subscribers?
You'll still have to tour somewhat, since there will never be a substitute for "real live", but the fans can keep in touch much more easily by live broadcast and interactive Web sites.
Live studio broadcast is the future of band music.
Because there IS NO future for audio recordings on CD's or MP3.
Nobody is paying for MUSIC on iTunes - they're paying for EASY ACCESS to music. This has been true for decades - since the first reel-to-reel tape recorders were used to record music. Along came portable radios with cassette recorders built in. Then came CD's - and digital - and the Internet.
This goes back to the days when the only way to hear music was to go to a bar or a club. People paid to access music - not for the music itself. Then came radio - you "paid" by listening to advertising - the music was free.
The Grateful Dead knew this: "The music is free. The concert costs."
It's over. Sound is free. Deal with it by turning to live video by subscription. It doesn't matter if somebody "pirates" your live video. Their copy isn't live - and why would anyone get it from anybody but the source?
Mideasterner said: "MATT PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE NEW SY HERSH (sic) ARTICLE WE NEED YOU AND ANDREW ON THIS RIGHT AWAY."
I didn't know that "Matt" and "Andrew" (as if you know them personally) did reviews of bad spy-genre fiction like Hersch's. If President Bush were about to attack Iran, do you really think that Mr. Hersch would be the first person he'd call and spill the beans? LOL Perhaps you should head to Tehran and act as a "human shield" for one of the uranium enrichment facilities that are, of course, "only for peaceful purposes" and not for weaponization.
Mideasterner said: "MATT PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE NEW SY HERSH (sic) ARTICLE WE NEED YOU AND ANDREW ON THIS RIGHT AWAY."
I didn't know that "Matt" and "Andrew" (as if you know them personally) did reviews of bad spy-genre fiction like Hersch's. If President Bush were about to attack Iran, do you really think that Mr. Hersch would be the first person he'd call and spill the beans? LOL Perhaps you should head to Tehran and act as a "human shield" for one of the uranium enrichment facilities that are, of course, "only for peaceful purposes" and not for weaponization.
Mideasterner said: "MATT PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE NEW SY HERSH (sic) ARTICLE WE NEED YOU AND ANDREW ON THIS RIGHT AWAY."
I didn't know that "Matt" and "Andrew" (as if you know them personally) did reviews of bad spy-genre fiction like Hersch's. If President Bush were about to attack Iran, do you really think that Mr. Hersch would be the first person he'd call and spill the beans? LOL Perhaps you should head to Tehran and act as a "human shield" for one of the uranium enrichment facilities that are, of course, "only for peaceful purposes" and not for weaponization.
Mideasterner said: "MATT PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE NEW SY HERSH (sic) ARTICLE WE NEED YOU AND ANDREW ON THIS RIGHT AWAY."
I didn't know that "Matt" and "Andrew" (as if you know them personally) did reviews of bad spy-genre fiction like Hersch's. If President Bush were about to attack Iran, do you really think that Mr. Hersch would be the first person he'd call and spill the beans? LOL Perhaps you should head to Tehran and act as a "human shield" for one of the uranium enrichment facilities that are, of course, "only for peaceful purposes" and not for weaponization.
Mideasterner said: "MATT PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE NEW SY HERSH (sic) ARTICLE WE NEED YOU AND ANDREW ON THIS RIGHT AWAY."
I didn't know that "Matt" and "Andrew" (as if you know them personally) did reviews of bad spy-genre fiction like Hersch's. If President Bush were about to attack Iran, do you really think that Mr. Hersch would be the first person he'd call and spill the beans? LOL Perhaps you should head to Tehran and act as a "human shield" for one of the uranium enrichment facilities that are, of course, "only for peaceful purposes" and not for weaponization.
Mideasterner said: "MATT PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE NEW SY HERSH (sic) ARTICLE WE NEED YOU AND ANDREW ON THIS RIGHT AWAY."
I didn't know that "Matt" and "Andrew" (as if you know them personally) did reviews of bad spy-genre fiction like Hersch's. If President Bush were about to attack Iran, do you really think that Mr. Hersch would be the first person he'd call and spill the beans? LOL Perhaps you should head to Tehran and act as a "human shield" for one of the uranium enrichment facilities that are, of course, "only for peaceful purposes" and not for weaponization.
Mideasterner said: "MATT PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE NEW SY HERSH (sic) ARTICLE WE NEED YOU AND ANDREW ON THIS RIGHT AWAY."
I didn't know that "Matt" and "Andrew" (as if you know them personally) did reviews of bad spy-genre fiction like Hersch's. If President Bush were about to attack Iran, do you really think that Mr. Hersch would be the first person he'd call and spill the beans? LOL Perhaps you should head to Tehran and act as a "human shield" for one of the uranium enrichment facilities that are, of course, "only for peaceful purposes" and not for weaponization.
Mideasterner said: "MATT PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE NEW SY HERSH (sic) ARTICLE WE NEED YOU AND ANDREW ON THIS RIGHT AWAY."
I didn't know that "Matt" and "Andrew" (as if you know them personally) did reviews of bad spy-genre fiction like Hersch's. If President Bush were about to attack Iran, do you really think that Mr. Hersch would be the first person he'd call and spill the beans? LOL Perhaps you should head to Tehran and act as a "human shield" for one of the uranium enrichment facilities that are, of course, "only for peaceful purposes" and not for weaponization.
Mideasterner said: "MATT PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE NEW SY HERSH (sic) ARTICLE WE NEED YOU AND ANDREW ON THIS RIGHT AWAY."
I didn't know that "Matt" and "Andrew" (as if you know them personally) did reviews of bad spy-genre fiction like Hersch's. If President Bush were about to attack Iran, do you really think that Mr. Hersch would be the first person he'd call and spill the beans? LOL Perhaps you should head to Tehran and act as a "human shield" for one of the uranium enrichment facilities that are, of course, "only for peaceful purposes" and not for weaponization.
Wow, Fred Paxson just totally failed the Internet!
My friend came up with the Craig Finn formula: reference to stiff drink + "oblique" obvious literary reference + a bit of wordplay + variable line stress + hookup story = song.
We spent about two hours making up our own Hold Steady songs, with me lamenting that they'd be much better if Craig Finn wasn't a terrible singer.
Now she can look at him and say, "I want to be him." With the latter option open, the tradition of groupies shrivels on the vine. - Amanda Marcotte
Alternatively it could become equal-opportunity: lesbians can have (lady) groupies too whilst straight women and gay male rockers can have male groupies (groupers?).
That isn't all Mr Paxson failed....
That isn't all Mr Paxson failed....
Comments closed July 13, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"...people who know better are using the Internet to steal... Stop, thief."
This means you, Mr. Yglesias
Posted by hlem | June 29, 2008 4:10 PM