Yeah I dunno why I hedged there -- it's definitely one of my favorite albums period. And the new one is really almost equally good. Tbh, it's superior in some ways, although I dunno if it would be possible for me to love it more than Gin.
Well StubHub doesn't buy or sell the tickets, they just facilitate the resale, and build in service fees. The tickets are bought and sold by individuals. (StubHub also has an almost foolproof system for buyer protection, which is a massive shift from the uncertainty of old-school "black market"-style scalping.) It works the same way as eBay. And both services create a degree of supply-demand transparency that presents new challenges to the primary sellers. Nike has used this to their advantage: Every new pair of Jordans or Dunks is sold in limited editions and unique colorways, so they all get bought up fast on release day by collectors or resellers, and the eBay market is feverish, driving the demand and prices UP. But a stadium can't create artificial demand in the same way. If the Yankees are playing in the postseason, those tickets won't be available at the box office for more than a day (if that). But virtually every regular-season game will have walk-up availability, and StubHub absolutely demolishes those sales. It's not just the tickets being sold at below-face, but virtually EVERY ticket sold on StubHub (the Yankees would rather you buy a ticket at the box office for $50 than a ticket on StubHub for $500). I'm not trying to defend the Yankees' position here though, just explain it a little bit. And again, if every game were sold out in advance and walk-up weren't an issue, this would be a whole different story.
Honestly, the Yankees' argument is pretty flimsy -- and I don't agree with it -- but this is it: If every game at the Stadium were always sold out, they'd have no problem with people selling below-face. In fact, they'd encourage it, because it would mean otherwise-empty seats would be filled, and those attendees would be buying concessions, souvenirs, etc.
But for any given Yankees game, maybe 60 percent of tickets are sold in advance, leaving 40 percent available for walk-up -- that's factored into their business model. So their official argument is: Our walk-up sales are severely diminished by third-party resellers, and the government needs to protect us here. In fact, initially, there was a StubHub kiosk like a block from the Stadium, and what the Yankees saw was, everyone was going to StubHub instead of the Yankees' ticket window on game day. So they lobbied to have it moved like a mile away.
It's a really unsustainable model, because it relies on an artificial supply-demand perception. Your binary is: The Yankees either get one ticket sale and no attendee or one ticket sale and one attendee, and ultimately, the second option is preferable to the first. Which isn't WRONG. But the Yankees' binary is: Either we get one ticket sale and one attendee, or TWO ticket sales and one attendee. And their argument to the city is: We rely on walk-up, and by allowing StubHub to exist in such close proximity to the Stadium, you're killing our walk-up.
It's not totally unlike the argument made by the RIAA in their attempts to shut down used-CD stores, although that was actually more reasonable because the RIAA could at least argue it was a copyright violation (but they failed to get any traction with that argument because of fair-use laws).
The argument against below-face tickets is this: Let's say I wake up on a sunny Saturday morning and decide I want to go to the game that day; I can go to the Yankee Stadium box office and buy a ticket for, say, $50 or buy a similar seat on StubHub for maybe $25. The seller is incentivized to move that ticket at any cost (because once the first pitch is thrown, its value drops to $0) while the Yankees can't just sell seats at clearance prices and undercut their own pricing structure. But the Yankees want BOTH sales, and they DEFINITELY don't want third-party resellers undercutting their pricing structure. They've gone to pretty extreme measures to fight against this, instituting their own resale operation and pushing the nearest StubHub facility like a mile away from the stadium. It's not illegal, of course, but prior to StubHub, they didn't have to deal with this sort of disruption -- if you wanted a ticket on game day, you bought one at the box office because that was often the cheapest and always the most convenient/reliable option. Now? StubHub offers more flexibility AND greater convenience AND is incredibly safe/reliable.
Even if there were incentive to do this -- and honestly the government is strongly incentivized NOT to do this -- it wouldn't really work. Think about it in relation to sporting events (where scalping is much more widespread than in music). Let's say the Yankees sold out Opening Day at Yankee Stadium, but it was an unusually cold or mildly inclement day -- not bad enough to cancel/reschedule the game, but bad enough that sitting outdoors for three or four hours would be pretty uncomfortable. They might lose half the gate on returns. (This is why all tickets say "No refunds or exchanges.") Season-ticket packages (which are huge sources of revenue for sports teams) would be virtually worthless if corporations couldn't hand out tickets to their clients or partners, and fans would buy them much more judiciously if they couldn't sell tickets that might go to waste otherwise. It might work for select events like a Louis CK show because he's got his own system in place and can enforce all sorts of specific regulations, but for the wider market it would be devastating.
Oh dang, thanks for the heads up. Yeah it looks like two of the "Special Announce" ticket options are gone, but everything else is available. Anyway I've amended the text reflecting my error. Sorry about that!
Thanks, Matt. Because I'm not clear on how Nielsen is differentiating between Beats and Apple Music (and because I was just wrong about Tidal) I amended the text to excise any dubious or unclear implications, and noted having made those changes in a correction note at the bottom of the story. I appreciate you pointing out my error, and I apologize again for any confusion. I totally agree with your point about YouTube's multi-platform accessibility and overall user-friendliness, and I think it speaks to the issue faced by discrete streaming services (at least in the immediate future). But that's not just an important point; it's a whole other story that has to factor in a host of user habits. I'm sure the 2017 version of this story will address that, if we don't get to it sooner. Thanks so much for your kind words, too, and for taking the time to comment!
Yeah, that was one of the "complicating factors" that I was alluding to. As far as I know, Nielsen DOES track Apple Music, but only for song streams not videos (which is why "Hotline Bling" didn't hit #1). But yeah, they don't track Tidal. But there are so many unknown factors that it's impossible to calculate, so I was oversimplifying, and maybe in doing so, inadvertently conflating Beats with Apple Music. I think the point stands, though? I was conservative with my Spotify figures, but according to reports they're actually at 30 million paid and 100 million active users. Also I didn't mention Rhapsody, but they grew 50 percent in 2015, with a subscription base of 3 million, and Google Play has a billion users as of September 2015, and the Nielsen numbers account for Beats Music and Rdio, though both were shut down on 11/30/2015, and Deezer (Cricket) still has 3 million active users plus another 3 million INACTIVE users. (This is FURTHER complicated by the fact that these user numbers are global while the Nielsen report is domestic, and Apple Music is available in 100 countries, etc.) The thing I was trying to get across was that streaming services should have seen larger percentage increase simply by virtue of the spotlight they were given in 2015 thanks to the endless media coverage of Apple Music and Tidal plus Spotify's growth alone. But yeah, if the reports I read are wrong and Nielsen doesn't track Apple Music -- and also if I erroneously conflated Beats with Apple Music -- then I apologize, and I appreciate the heads up!
On that note, Billboard just published this a second ago:
"Last week, Major Lazer and DJ Snake's MØ-assisted clip for "Lean On" became the 14th music video to hit 1 billion views on YouTube ... Amazingly, there were only two members of the billion-views club this time last year: Psy and Justin Bieber."
Haha yeah, I'm gonna hazard a guess that outside of David Kahne discography pages, the names Love/Hate and the Strokes have never before appeared within a hundred thousand words of one another. Those guys were definitely leaning into the cliches -- the main dude called himself Jizzy Pearl ffs -- but they transcend them 10x over. They're usually lumped into the post-Poison hair metal scene, but Blackout is really an antidote to that stuff; it's brazenly hedonistic but explores the actual horrors and existential emptiness of that lifestyle. It's also such a finely wrought, richly melodic, perfect-sounding album. I consider it on the level of Alice In Chains' Facelift (which also has its roots in '80s glam metal, and subverts them in similar ways). Their second album, Wasted In America, is also excellent (and was also produced by David Kahne, fwiw).
First off, thank you for providing that link. I must have missed that story (the Q Mag piece, which wasn't published online) but I just read the thing in full and it is probably one of the most uncomfortable interviews I've ever seen. Second, Julian's account is much vaguer and less severe-sounding than the comment above.
Julian says: "[Valensi] wanted to do a solo record of songs that we arranged together in The Strokes but because we have a contract he wasn’t allowed to do that."
MrAnderson says: "[Valensi] had 10 songs written by himself, using a few riffs from The Strokes' old sessions ... When Mr. Casablancas found out that Mr. Valensi was planning to release a solo album using some raw material from old Strokes' sessions, as Casablancas used in his solo record, he ordered Mr. Valensi not to do it and even threatened him with legal action."
I mean a contract is a contract, so Julian is probably in the right here, but man there is so much bitterness between these guys. (I'm assuming MrAnderson is some sort of proxy for Nick Valensi, and this isn't some obsessed fan reading all this additional stuff into Julian's quote.) Ugh. Who knows. I guess a lot of the best bands totally hated each other and still made great music, so I'm holding out hope for the next Strokes record. But anyone who has more of that Nick solo joint, please share! That track is really good.
Am I the only person seeing this comment? Am I hallucinating? Has anyone else heard this story (or this song)?
"When Mr. Casablancas found out that Mr. Valensi was planning to release a solo album using some raw material from old Strokes' sessions, as Casablancas used in his solo record, he ordered Mr. Valensi not to do it and even threatened him with legal action."
This whole thing is blowing my mind. Is this like some bit of commonly known trivia, or is it a total fabrication, or is it just totally unfamiliar to everyone else too?
Well, I'm assuming the song at least is legit because that is definitely the riff from "Partners." That's a really good song! Somebody should leak the rest of the album!
Wait seriously? I've never heard this story before! I mean, I assumed as much about the "chorus chord progression" thing, but I didn't know ANY of this stuff about a Nick Valensi solo LP, and I'd never heard this song before. Where did you hear this?
It was this Pitchfork feature: http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/7925-this-is-it-ten-years-of-the-strokes/
Problem is, who knows WHICH songs he was gonna cut. Coulda been "Razorblade," "Ask Me Anything," and "Electricityscape," right? Then the album would've been so much worse!
Yeah, I'm surprised that doesn't exist already to be honest. It might be that digital streaming rights wouldn't apply to a satellite radio-affiliated product the same way they do to a traditional on-demand streaming service? Or maybe the price point would be too high? Or maybe it just can't be integrated into the existing hardware? I dunno. It seems like a good idea to me though!
Ah man I'm glad you listened to that playlist! Leviathan is definitely the densest, most atonal thing on there, and yeah, headphones are basically essential. He's just doing stuff musically that I've never heard anywhere, ever. As for the Deafheaven/LoG/Anthrax show: It's gonna be way more of a "metal" crowd than the Trib/Envy/Deafheaven show. I'm not a fan of LoG or Anthrax, personally, but I'm sure the place will go berserk when Anthrax plays, because they're one of the all-time classic thrash bands. That said: I highly encourage you to check out the Decibel tour when it comes to your city. It's Tribulation/Skeletonwitch/High On Fire/Abbath, and that is a KILLER lineup. I'm not the biggest Skeletonwitch fan but they're a strong live act. High On Fire are nothing short of life-changing, though, and Abbath is a legend.
Yeah, I agree, TBS were objectively the worst. I always thought of them as a randomly thrown-together band with a randomly thrown-together sound that inexplicably got big while the far superior bands they were ripping off either flatlined or fell apart. Brand New were always great though.
I was trying to figure that out, actually. Obviously it's not an exact parallel, but assuming we limit it to the LI scene ... maybe From Autumn To Ashes?
Yeah, I really love APL. As for Yellow Eyes, they were eligible last month, but we decided to forego them because we already had Abigail Williams and Panopticon, both of which are totally stellar, and we didn't want to load down the list with USBM stuff. But they are pretty great, no question.
Also the version of "Man Of Constant Sorrow" that closed "Rhinoceros" two weeks ago was by Blitzen Trapper. Per this thread, it might never be released, but somebody posted it on YouTube.
Haha yeah, I was just being a pedantic stathead snob. I shoulda hashtagged it as such. It's a situational thing anyway and subject to many more factors than just: "This is what Bill James or Nate Silver once wrote, I think." I just don't get many opportunities to talk baseball on Stereogum.
Sabermetrics-wise, you generally want your BEST hitter to bat in the #2 spot, although few managers embrace that approach because it's still seen as non-traditional (the same way many managers still embrace the role of a 9th inning closer rather than using their best short-relief pitcher in a potentially higher-leverage 8th inning). I believe the optimal lineup has your best hitter batting #2, your second best hitter batting cleanup, and your third best hitter batting #3.
Hahaha. TOUCHÉ! You know there were rumors at one point that it was going to be a triple album. I'm sure he's got WAY more than enough songs for two more.
Well, I think they'll all be back individually (and NYC sold out btw!) but who knows if you'll ever see another show like that. From where I was standing on the floor at Webster Hall, I could see all the bands watching all the other bands from the balcony -- like, I would look up and see Kerry McCoy watching intently while Trib and Envy were playing; or I'd look up while Deafheaven were playing and see some of the Trib guys staring mesmerized, etc. I kinda feel like they're all just on the road together and witnessing this surreal brilliance every night, and they're all like, "Jesus this is amazing. Fuck. We gotta be even BETTER." So you've got three bands who were great to begin with, all pushing each other to new levels of greatness. Like, if you're Envy or Deafheaven, how could you watch Tribulation walk on stage to a cold room and play that set and not feel like you had to fucking BRING IT? But yeah I'm in the same daze, and it's the best feeling.
Same. I'd seen Deafheaven three times and Tribulation once, so I knew what to expect to some extent. But even so, both bands were operating on whole new levels last night. Tribulation were on some real rock-god shit; they were just owning it. But I had no idea what Envy was gonna be like, and I was absolutely spellbound -- it felt like the room was an ocean and they were the moon conducting the tides or something. Deafheaven have always been an unreal live act, now they just have more songs -- and the new songs are more intense live -- and are playing to bigger audiences in better rooms. And it suits them! I dunno if I could pick a favorite. "Gifts For The Earth," maybe? But they were all 100 for me.
Dude, yes. That show was fucking magical. Every set was a 10/10 and they all felt like gifts from god. I don't even have words. My expectations were astronomical, and somehow, those expectations seemed flat and unimaginative compared to the show we got. I was absolutely blown away.
Yeah, go see High On Fire no matter what. They might be the best live band in the world, objectively speaking. Every time I see them I feel like I'm witnessing a reincarnation of the Jimi Hendrix Experience or something. Not an exaggeration.
1. IMO, yes def. They're both great. I actually did AOTWs on both of them this year:
http://www.stereogum.com/1794171/album-of-the-week-tribulation-the-children-of-the-night/franchises/album-of-the-week/
http://www.stereogum.com/1814694/album-of-the-week-envy-atheists-cornea/franchises/album-of-the-week/
2. Nah, that will be a mellow, mixed crowd. I can't say I've felt truly scared at a metal show since seeing Slayer touring for Seasons In The Abyss, but Deafheaven fans are definitely not the type to just light your jacket on fire or bust you in the jaw or anything.
No, that's fair. I shouldn't have said "newcomers" -- I was writing quickly, and trying to cram three or four different thoughts into one sentence, and I think I ended up distorting or misrepresenting all those thoughts. The vocals are high in the mix and they don't blend into the music -- you're forced to engage with them because they're like an entirely different texture. And they present an obvious barrier to entry to people who don't know this kind of music at all, but they could also be a sticking point for someone with a real metal acumen, because they're so prominent and unusual. That's why I brought up the van Drunen comparison -- just to say, like: Here's a historical reference point, and if you hadn't considered that context, doing so might help you either hear Horrendous from a new angle or help you understand why you're having trouble getting into Horrendous. But even that's reductive because it's not like they're doing a van Drunen imitation by any means, and/or you could still be a van Drunen fan and not like this because of the way the music interacts with the vocals or whatever. I dunno -- I honestly don't think you should have to work at it; it's really just a taste thing. I love the vocals, and that's a big part of why I love the record.
I don't keep track of these things, but I remember Baroness' Blue Record got a 10/10 too (and I'm sure there have been others). Of course both these records came out in 2009, so it's basically another lifetime. I thought Children Of The Night would get a 10/10, but it ended up with a 9/10, as I recall. That record deserved a perfect score, though, and so does this one.
Comments