Yesterday I Learned … VI

March 22, 2020November 29, 2023 RilalyLeave a comment

Yesterday, I heard a joke that suggested if we were to accept that the now decades old television show 24 as a realistic depiction of 24 hours of Jack Bauer’s life, we were going to need to see him go to the bathroom every once in a while. Everyone has to use the facilities every once in a while, this joke implied, and if we were going to accept the fact that Jack Bauer was truly human, the writers should’ve included a line like, “I know lives are on the line, Mr. President, and I’m well aware of the fact that every precious second counts, but I have to take a squirt.” The joke is funny, because it has an element of truth to it. We don’t need to know that Jack Bauer does this, of course, but if the show’s directors and writers seek a version of true reality, shouldn’t we see him relieve himself in some way?

It’s here now. Enterprising young directors heard that call, and they responded. Whatever remained of that artistic abstract, known as the fourth wall, is now coming down. These young and ambitious directors now force their actors to engage in the ultimate form of reality by relieving themselves on camera to indulge our desire for this ultimate form of reality.

Today, I realized that if a director asked me, twenty years ago, how far they should go to depict reality, I might have told them I’m all for injecting a sense of reality in various entertainment vehicles, and I might have encouraged them to pop whatever bubble they could find. I would’ve kept that advice general, of course, as I don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to making visual productions, and I don’t know how to depict reality on screen. If that director then asked me what I thought an audience might think of seeing their favorite character squat on a commode, I would’ve told them that that’s probably a step too far. If they asked me if I thought hearing a character’s water hit the water might help audiences relate to their character better, I would’ve said, “No, I think most people accept the fact that the characters these actors are portraying are human, and while there are some elements you can introduce to provide some hyper reality on a cases by case basis, the idea that one uses the facilities is better left assumed. I also don’t think seeing or hearing bodily functions, adds to that sense of association or cements that bond any further.” It turns out some modern directors decided that I was wrong. When they depict a character vomit now, it’s not enough for them to provide the audio of the act or show the convulsions a body goes through in the act of vomiting. In the king of the mountain mentality of depicting reality, these directors decided that we need to see the chunks and fluid flow from the mouth. We can only guess that these ambitious directors heard the 24 joke, and they decided to heed the call that we need to see bodily functions if we are going to accept it as real. We’re not at the point, yet, where we demand to see waste move out of the body before we accept the fact it’s truly happening, but recent evidence suggests we’re probably not too far away.

Go to Your Room

Yesterday, I heard a great joke from Jerry Seinfeld. “The penal system we have is so American. ‘You do something bad, you go to a room. You think about what you did,’” Jerry Seinfeld said mocking the convention of our country’s archaic idea of imprisoning criminals. I don’t think I need to qualify my reply to Jerry Seinfeld by saying I think he’s a comedic genius. If the reader thinks I do, let me just say that I think there are but a handful of comedians who can put a clever spin on the conventions of daily life, or our societal conventions, on a level anywhere close to Jerry Seinfeld. How many comedians could take a large societal issue like the philosophy behind incarceration and associate it with the punishments our parents inflicted on us when we were naughty as kids?

Today, I thought about how much his clever and hilarious point misses the mark. Before I write anything further, let me also write that I understand that his comments are satirical in nature, and that satirists should not be required to debate their jokes or provide solutions. The first, obvious rebuttal I would make is that the idea of crime and punishment is not exclusive to America. Other countries, throughout the world in history, tried imprisoning those who committed transgressions against their fellow man, and that historical precedent worked so well that America adopted it. The second question I would pose to Seinfeld is, “If you were king for a day, how would you handle this whole idea of people committing crimes? And before you answer, remember that there are victims of crime, and there would be subsequent victims that could be harmed by your edicts.” The third, and related, point I would make is that lawmakers decide laws and appropriate punishments to provide cultural definition. We know we live in a ‘You do this, you go there for a certain amount of time relative to the crime and the nature of the crime.’ In a Representative Republic, we select lawmakers and judges to decide those laws and the subsequent punishments, and if we don’t like them, we vote them out of office and select another representative we believe better represents our views. Again, I know Jerry Seinfeld is a satirist who pokes fun at conventions, and this joke involves some healthy, insightful commentary on a situation that plagues our country, but I’d love to know how he might better fix what he calls our flawed system of punishment.

It’s Not about You

Yesterday, I borrowed a book from the library on the former Nirvana singer/guitarist Kurt Cobain, and his influence on music and society. About twenty pages in, I realized that this author was personalizing his narrative under the ‘Where was I when I first heard?’ theme. “I couldn’t believe it,” he wrote. “I was so shocked. We couldn’t believe it. I called friends I haven’t talked to in years, and we consoled one another.” Who cares, was my first thought, and I couldn’t shake that thought no matter how much further I read. I didn’t care about this author’s reaction any more than he would mine.

I learned a valuable lesson, twenty pages in, if an author is going to write about someone or something we all know, their first job is to tell us something we don’t know. If an author is going to make it about the author to illustrate a point, that’s fine, as long as they employ the ‘get in, get out’ methodology to achieve a greater point. At some point in his long-winded narrative, the author made it obvious that his book was more about him than his subject. As far as I’m concerned, there is no fine line here. In this case, the author described his reaction to Cobain’s suicide to be part of the moment. I don’t care what the subject is, whether it’s fiction or non, I read with an ‘I don’t care what the author thinks’ mentality. A gifted storyteller might tell us what they think, but they should do so in a carefully structured method that leads us to think we thought it first.

As a reader, my advice to all authors is, don’t write about you until people care about what you think. Even then, the reason we might care about you is that you’re such a gifted writer that we never know it’s you telling us what you think. Today, I realized how difficult this is in the Twitter age. We make posts about our friends, our feelings about our friends, our feelings about our feelings, and the fact that we’re now at Arby’s. People tell us that they enjoy our posts, and we morph this into creative ways of telling everyone how everything is about us in one way or another. We continue doing so, until we are unable to make the separation necessary to write about our subject without including our feelings on the subject. Some suggest that it’s impossible to be objective, but there’s subjectivity and then there’s subjectivity. Some authors obviously think that when they begin writing about their feelings on a subject that their readers will appreciate their ability to be vulnerable on paper and that they will value their unflinching and refreshing honesty on the subject they’re addressing, and we might, if we cared about the author. If we cared about the author, we would’ve knowingly purchased their autobiography, their memoirs, or some catalog of their musings. If the author decides, instead, to write about someone that someone else might be interested in reading about, the author needs to remember that we purchased the book, because we thought it was about them, and no one is ever going to purchase a book about you, because not everything is about you.

The Media and the Coronavirus

Yesterday, I believed in a couple crackpot, Chicken Little conspiracy theories and some depressing doomsayer stories. I didn’t believe a majority of them, but I believed enough of them to recognize these theories for what they are. It took some embarrassment to reach that point. “You don’t really believe that do you?” friends and family would ask when I would repeat their drivel. It also took the humiliation of being wrong more often than I was right to help shape and form my beliefs system, but as I said in another post on this topic, I was eventually able to shed that skin.

We believe these theories because we’re afraid, and fear can be a good thing when we use it properly, as it can lead to self-preservation. A fear of heights, for example, can prevent us from going so high that we could get hurt. Some fears are irrational, such as a fear of alien attacks, sharks, and ghosts, but the brain uses fear to protect itself and the body. The 24-7 news outlets, and other companies that send out email blasts, also learned how to manipulate fear to get us to do what they want us to do, mainly tune in. They played on our fears to get ratings and clicks, and they did it so often that we were numb to it when they begin reporting on what we should fear for our own self-preservation.

How much of our time and fear did these networks and email blasters waste over the years on frivolous matters that would blow over by the end of the week? How many “News Bulletins” followed by exclamation points did they waste on stupid stories that had no relevance? How many people were afraid to invest their hard-earned dollars in the stock market? “Just wait,” rational minds advised, “this whole thing will blow over by Wednesday,” and so many of these Chicken Little conspiracy theories and some depressing doomsayer stories did. The market rewarded diligent investors, who ignored these stories, for their patience.

The job of various news outlets is to report on matters that require our attention. When they report on natural disasters, for example, we tune into their broadcasts for information on how to act and react. They know when we tune in, as do their advertisers, and the two of them join forces to develop, or enhance, subsequent stories to demand our attention. As any artist will tell you, a novice can enhance relatively meager paintings with shading and artistic framing. The 24-7 news networks often enhanced such relatively meager stories in this manner, until we begin believing every story is a national tragedy, and then we experienced burn out.

I don’t know what difference it would’ve made, but I think we might have taken the coronavirus more seriously if they didn’t break us down with every over-hyped hurricane or political story that was going to end our country, as we know it. I also have a special place in the dark parts of my heart for the financial doomsayers who, for years, predicted the market would fall for whatever reason they dreamed up to get us to click on their emails.

Today, I realized that the coronavirus is a full-fledged pandemic, and it took a lot of convincing to break through the thick, hard shell I developed to all of these Chicken Little, crackpot theories and depressing doomsayer stories. I don’t know about anyone else, but I had a threshold. By the time the coronavirus broke, some of my instincts told me that this might be different, but after being inundated by so many disaster stories that required my attention for so many years, I thought it would all blow over without too much pain. So, I direct some portion of the blame of my financial pain on all those crackpot, Chicken Little conspiracy theorist and depressing doomsayers who exaggerated every story to the point that they scared me. Over time, I found that the best course of action was to do nothing and to recognize conspiracy theories and doomsayers for what they are. If I believed one-tenth of them over the decades, there’s no way I would have invested my relatively meager savings into the stock market. I wouldn’t believe in America, and I probably wouldn’t have left my home. I didn’t believe the coronavirus was as bad as they were saying. I thought it was more 24-7 news bulletins on a story that would blow over like an over-hyped hurricane, and I now blame them for it.

Take the Money and Run

January 9, 2020August 28, 2025 RilalyLeave a comment

“Show me the money!” I’ll say if I’m ever in the fortunate position of someone offering me substantial amounts of money. I’ll steal that line from one of Cameron Crowe’s screenplays, called Jerry Maguire. If I’m ever in a position of taking money now, versus the prospect, or potential, of making more on the backend, I’ll tell my high-priced negotiator to “Take the money and run!” Don’t ask questions, don’t try to be clever, get out of there with as much upfront money as you can possibly get me.”

There are other stories, and we’ve all heard them when “Big-Time” players play “Big-Time” games with the money and won. Jack Nicholson agreed to play the role of The Joker for $6 million dollars, but he had a clause in his contract that stated he would receive a percentage of the Batman’s receipts and merchandise. Some estimates suggest he ended up making $90 million off the movie. “Yeah, that, I want to be that guy,” we say when we finish reading those sentences. “He knows who he is, and how indispensable he is, and he used it to make some major bank. I want that all over me.” Of course you do, I do, and we do, but we’re not Jack Nicholson. I don’t write that to suggest Nicholson is more important than us, as I can’t stand it when people say, “You’re no Jack Nicholson!” about an actor or athlete who in many cases is simply more fortunate, as opposed to more talented than most. I write that because while we’re basking in the glow of the moment, we need to remember who we are to them and how relatively indispensable we are to them. Nicholson’s image was so important to Warner Brothers that they considered it essential to selling that movie to the public. Moral of that story, know your bargaining position, and ask your side to try to be objective when characterizing it for you.

On the flip side, is one of Nicholson’s favorite NBA stars of all-time, Magic Johnson. Magic had a deal all set for him from an upstart shoe company called Nike. Nike couldn’t offer Magic the big money that Converse could. Converse offered Magic $100,000 to sign a shoe deal, so Nike countered with $100,000 in stock options. The Nike stock was worth $.18 a share at that point. Estimates now have it that if Magic took the Nike deal, and he never sold a single share, his stock options would now be worth $5.2 billion.

It’s a provocative tale, but if Magic signed with Nike, Michael Jordan probably wouldn’t have, and with all respect to the great Magic Johnson, I doubt his image and persona would’ve sold as well as Air Jordan.

I don’t care what happened to Jack, Magic, or Michael, if someone offers us a boatload of money, take it. There might be some room for haggling, and we should probably, probably, consider it, as it might be the only time we spend any time in the Sun, but be careful. Spend too much time in the Sun, or getting too close to the Sun, and we’re toast, literally, figuratively, actually, and all those -ly words. The “theys” on the other side of negotiating table don’t always respect a crafty businessman or woman. Sometimes they get ticked off, and they remove once-in-lifetime opportunities. Don’t overthink their positions at the table or overestimate yours. Don’t think about backend percentages, equity stakes, or anything other than upfront money. Hire some guy who has a wall full of diplomas, and a track record that’s going to cost you if you want to hire his representation services and instruct him to get, “as much upfront money as you can possibly get.”

For those who think they might not never be in a position like this again, and you tends to be a person who thinks you can outthink the system, I give you Winston Groom v. Paramount. Author Winston Groom was offered a boatload of money for the movie rights to his book Forrest Gump. Forrest Gump? We’re talking about Forrest Gump, one of the highest grossing movies of its era? Yes, the movie that ended up making $683 million. Winston Groom sensed that he was in an excellent bargaining situation, and he probably had all kinds of advisors telling him that with this book, he was going to soon be living in the land of sunshine. Groom obviously loved that notion, and as an author of numerous books prior to Forrest Gump, he knew there wasn’t a lot of money in writing. He knew enough to know that a movie studio approaching a relatively obscure author money could be a once-in-a-lifetime moment.

Groom, probably influenced by his advisors, lawyers, and friends and family suggested that he should take the roundabout route. Why would you want a lump sum when the potential for this story on screen could make hundreds of millions. No one knew it would make over a half a billion at the time, of course, but we have to think Groom had such visions dancing in his head. That’s the idea of potential, potential earnings messing with our head. Potential can be an evil temptress, whispering sweet secrets to us. Forget potential, I say, get it out of your head, and “Take the money and run!”

Groom listened to those sweet secrets and took less upfront money $350,000 with the promise of receiving 3% of the backend profits. The movie made $683 million, but Paramount’s accountants, using “Hollywood accounting,” found out that Forrest Gump actually lost $80 million when all was said and done. A movie that made $683 million lost $80 million? How is that possible? Hollywood accounting. Groom never heard of Hollywood accounting, so he asked to see it, firsthand. Groom was so incensed, after seeing what they did with the numbers that he sued. We don’t know how much Groom spent on lawyers and accountants, or how long he spent threatening his lawsuit, but when Groom finally saw his day in court, the judge asked Winston Groom to confirm that he signed the contract she had before her. “Yes,” he said. She threw the case out in 15 minutes.

Years later, Groom wrote a sequel to Gump, called Gump & Co. (company). Paramount decided to purchase the rights to that sequel, and they offered a seven-figure sum for it, upfront money. Groom took that upfront money and ran away as fast as he could. Moral of the story: If someone offers you money take it!

Some of us have philosophical problems with “Show me the money” and “Take the money and run!” They think that we should consider a “Too much money” pause before signing. So, if you’re in a position to make massive amounts of money, you’re going to pause and say, “That’s too much money for the ability to do something with a ball.” There are people starving in the streets, teachers who teach the next generation how to survive in the world don’t make 1/100th of that money, and doctors, who save lives, don’t make 1/50th of that money. Why should I make that much, we might think, mired in guilt. To assuage your guilt, ask yourself a question, where’s that money going to go. It’s there, and it’s there for you. What are you worth? You’re worth what someone is willing to pay, and if you don’t take your slice of the pie, where is it going to go?

“It’s not all about the money for me,” earners often say. Then we hear cliches like, “Money isn’t everything, and money is the root of all evil.” These are things people who make a boatload of money say to those who don’t. It makes everyone feel better about ourselves.

Some of the best advice I’ve ever heard is, “Money isn’t evil, people are, or they aren’t, and making more money will help us further define whether they are or aren’t, which one could say, means that is the root from which evil blooms, but it isn’t the seed.” Money is the reward for our efforts, but if we’re doing it solely for the money, we’re doing it wrong. If we’re only doing it for the money, we’ll probably end up unfulfilled and miserable. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do everything we can to take every dime we can from those on the other side of the negotiation table. If you’re ever in a position where something you’ve created leads you to be lucky enough to sit on the other side of a negotiation table, wipe all of the nonsense you’ve heard about money, your whole life, from your mind. This might be the only chance you have to make some real money.

If we hire someone to negotiate for us, and most people should, send them in with the instructions that you want them to bleed every last dime out of the other party. Once your team determines the other team of negotiators is not going to pay another cent, take it, take as much front-end money as possible, and run away as fast and as far as you can. Don’t think about the back end, the asides they offer in lieu of money, the otherwise symbolic, prestigious titles they offer, or anything but the money. The job of the other team’s negotiators is to pay you the least amount of upfront money possible, and they will use several creative measures to accomplish that. Ignore all of that and the voices in your head screaming about the prospect of making more money on another end, and remove those cartoon dollar signs from your eyes. As the negotiations between Winston Groom and Paramount suggest, “Show me the money,” should be the first and last things you say in any negotiations.

Winston Groom was a writer, and though he probably experienced some level of negotiations selling Forrest Gump and his other books to book publishers, he probably knew negotiating the rights of his book with a Hollywood production studio was a different league. This was probably the most advantageous position Groom had ever been in his life, and he didn’t know anything about such negotiations. He probably hired a team of lawyers and other specialists to handle the negotiations for him. We can guess that negotiators on Paramount’s side were so eager for the project that they showed their hand at various points. Groom’s negotiators probably knew, at some point, how much Paramount wanted his book. We can guess that numerous advisors probably guesstimated how much money this story could make for both sides, especially if they knew actor Tom Hanks and director Robert Zemeckis would sign onto the project at the time of negotiations, and Groom’s team probably walked away from that table with several proposals from Paramount. Groom ended up selecting the proposal that gave him $350,000 on the front end, and while this is a sizable amount, sources report that it was less than the top proposal of front-end money. Groom chose the proposal with less on the front end because his negotiators worked out a clause that would give Groom 3% percent on the backend, movie’s net profits. Who wouldn’t take less on the front-end if they knew they could make 3% of $683 the million on the backend that, by my math, equals over $19 million? Groom and his team couldn’t know how much the movie would make, but we can only imagine that Groom had dollar signs in his eyes when he signed the bottom line.

We can also guess that Winston Groom was more than patient with Paramount after Forrest Gump raked in $683 million, and we can imagine that Groom followed the box office numbers with great interest, and excitement, and probably did so with some old, rare scotch bottles and celebratory cigars. At some point, further down the line, Groom informed Paramount that he hadn’t received a single dollar of those royalties. At some point beyond those initial letters, calls, and emails, Paramount sent Groom a “We regret to inform you …” letter. They regretted to inform Groom that Forrest Gump, the fourth highest grossing film of all time (at that time), that grossed $683 million, “didn’t make a net profit.” Paramount’s accountants found that not only did Forrest Gump not make a profit. After expenses, the movie actually ended up $80 million in the red. They probably concluded the letter with a “and gosh darn it, they found that it didn’t make a net profit.”

Winston Groom is Winston Groom, an author who wrote eight novels and fifteen non-fiction books. As with most authors, he was relatively unknown, until one of his novels ended up selling 30,000 copies, a relatively high number of copies sold for Groom. A producer for Paramount, Wendy Finerman, “discovered” Forrest Gump for Paramount, and she pushed it into production. Hollywood, slash Paramount, thought Winston Groom was Winston Groom, a writer of a book, among the hundreds of thousands of people who write books. He wasn’t a limited commodity in other words, and they didn’t care if they offended him.

If a Tom Hanks or a Robert Zemekis were ticked off about their compensation, if they signed a deal similar to Groom’s, we can rest assure that Paramount would’ve scrambled to do whatever they had to make them happy. Winston Groom was Winston Groom, a writer, see ya never again, Winston Groom!

We have to imagine that the star and director of Forrest Gump didn’t have to sue to receive their royalty checks, because Paramount didn’t want to upset them. They didn’t extend the same courtesy to Winston Groom, however, because they probably figured they wouldn’t have any future dealings with him. Groom declared that the other parts of his lawsuit against Paramount left him as “happy as a pig in sunshine,” but these deals don’t always end up this way. Thus, if you’re ever lucky enough to be seated at a negotiations table, pitted against someone who wants something you have, set aside your qualms about the evils of money and greed, and get the most front-end money you can while they’re all good and eager. They will dance the prospect of future funds in your fertile brain, “Because no one thinks short-term, right?” Wipe those words away, like Tom Cruise did in Minority Report and replace it with the name Winston Groom. That name should be highlighted and underlined in your brain, when they begin to offer creative substitutes. Don’t kill the deal with greed, and depending on your feel in the negotiation, don’t wait them out for a better deal. Walk in screaming “show me the money” and leave mumbling it with pride.

My Favorite Band is Better Than Yours

December 13, 2019December 16, 2019 RilalyLeave a comment

“You’re favorite bands suck! Trust me, they SUCK.”

Why do I like them then?

“I’m telling you that the band members cannot play their instruments, and their lyrics are stupid. They ripped off just about everything they did from better artists, and they weren’t very good people.”

What’s the difference between my favorite bands and the more technically proficient musicians playing meaningful, important songs? The arguments that critics and other music experts make involve a long, complicated algorithm that involves, in part, the technical proficiency that their well-trained ears hear, meaningful, important lyrics, and insider stories that detail performance inadequacies. These insiders write about moments our favorite guitarist couldn’t complete a complicated riff, and the record company, or the producer, had to call in a studio musician to do it. They know that our favorite music involves drum machines and drum samples that our favorite drummer wasn’t talented enough to complete to anyone’s satisfaction, and they know when technical wizards enhance the vocalist’s voice in parts. They tell us about how our favorite albums, by our favorite musicians, were tweaked in final mixing process, with special effects boxes, overdubs, and everything that the non-musicians accomplished in the high priced studio for the right money.

“Your favorite album, from your favorite artist, is a fraud perpetuated on the public,” they say. “It is an overly produced, computer enhanced contrivance that your favorite artist will never be able to play live without assistance.”

For the rest of us, this long and complicated algorithm ends in a big fat, “No one cares!” box. No one cares if the lyrics in these songs are deep and meaningful. Some do, of course, as they want others to view them in a serious light, so they avoid silly music with silly lyrics. Most people consider lyrics anywhere from silly to irrelevant. They might seek out the lyrics to find out what the vocalist is singing in the song, but most people don’t care one way or another if the lyrics prove sophomoric. Most of us bake that idea into our listening experience. Most meaningful, important music is woefully overrated. Most of us also don’t care if our favorite musicians are good people or bad people either. Cringe worthy headlines might stain the reputation of a musician, but our emotional attachment to most musicians does not extend to their personal life. Experts and critics don’t consider this an adequate defense. They require us to defend our favorite musician based on their criteria.

We know that if we enter into a debate with experts and critics, standing toe-to-toe, to defend our favorite band, they would beat us to pulp. If our debate had an audience, would these critics and experts persuade anyone in that audience? Would they care? Who is their audience? Are they trying to persuade us, or are they writing these critiques to one another? How many sacred cows of rock receive less than four stars? Are critics afraid that no one will invite them to cocktail parties if they violate the standard ratings?

We know most experts and critics can hear technical proficiency better than we can, and we know that all of the reasons we have for enjoying one band over another are tough to explain, except to say our appreciation for creative flair is greater than our appreciation for technical proficiency.

The experts will also tell us everything we want to know, and some that we don’t, about better artists who didn’t achieve one-fourth the acclaim our favorite artists did. They will comb through the historical timeline and lament the cheated artists who were better at the craft, and they’ll tell us how our favorite artists stole the sound of those artists and simplified it for mass appeal. They’ll tell us something about those time and place intangibles that factor into the equation of how one artist achieves more popularity over another. They’ll tell us about some kind of successful, but contrived appeal our favorite artists made to achieve fame. They’ll also tell us that our favorite artist is a well-packaged marketing gimmick for people who know nothing about real music. Some of them will then give us a list of artists we should be listening to instead, and some of us will give those artists a listen.

Most naysayers do not list their favorite groups, because if they say that our favorite bands suck, and they offer an alternative, we might think their favorite bands suck. It diminishes a contrarian’s argument to provide an alternative, but putting themselves in such a position is also admirable in that sense. If we find their argument compelling, on that basis, we might listen to their favorite artists. After a couple listens, we might admit that their band is probably technically superior, but they don’t display the same creative flair our favorite bands did. Something is missing, as their band failed to capture the magic our favorite band did.

Even if our favorite artist is guilty of all of the above, we think the people involved in the album(s) created something that the more accomplished, and perhaps more deserving, artists either wouldn’t or couldn’t achieve. At this point in the argument, the experts might ask us why we fell in love with our favorite band. Was it the iconography that surrounded our favorite artist at the time, and did your peers convince you that they were great? Were they a better celebrity? Did our favorite artists have a better voice, were they better looking, or did they have some other superficial appeal that we found more pleasing than the better artist’s appeal? This is difficult to answer for most of us, because most of our attachments to music are emotional, as opposed to rational, and we cannot defend or explain why we prefer our bands to theirs, but we’re also not susceptible to having our minds changed on the subject.

I used to be that guy. I used to engage in the “my music is better than yours” childish game that some critics and music experts do. I don’t think I ever said those words, but I thought you would know the truth the minute you heard it. Even though I had no personal stake in my favorite band’s success, I loved their music so much that it became “my music”. I introduced “my music” to everyone I knew. For all of the reasons inherent in why we identify with our music, I was personally insulted when they didn’t enjoy it, and I considered far too gratifying when they did. I was far too proud to be the one who “discovered” the band among my peers. I think I considered it creativity on my part. I knew the joy I felt was vicarious, but I wasn’t doing anything else creative at that point in my life, so I think it filled that void.

The problem others had with “my music” was that it was silly. My serious music aficionado friends wouldn’t go anywhere near that group, that album, or that track on the album, lest they be hit by the stank of unserious music. They didn’t want anyone to consider them silly. If I attempted to promote a new album, they said, “Didn’t you like that track from that one album?” I did, I responded, I do. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with silly songs. I don’t understand why serious aficionados dismiss a whole chunk of music because it’s unserious. My music doesn’t focus on depression, pain, anger, anti-social behavior, relationships, drug addiction (primarily heroin), war, death, and other emotionally charged topics.

One particular instance involved an “undiscovered gem” I found from an “undiscovered” artist. That album blew my mind at the time, and I still, thirty years later, consider that album one of the top ten of all time. I wanted to be that guy who introduced that album to everyone I knew. I considered the album the product of creative geniuses. The music on that album spoke to me on a level I felt compelled to share with everyone I knew. Everyone I forced to listen to this album enjoyed it, but no one I knew bought it. Three years later, another band stole their sound. This other band personalized that sound a little here and tweaked it little there to make it fit with the zeitgeist better. I loved that album too, and I introduced it to everyone I knew. Everyone I knew loved it, and everyone I knew bought it. That album sold five million copies. This band went on to national acclaim, and critics still recognize them as one of the greatest, most original artists of all time. Yet, they stole that sound, and I learned later that they publicly admitted it. The band that I declared one of my favorite artists currently carries an asterisk no artist wants of being critically acclaimed, but never well received.

What was the difference between these two bands? The answer, again, involves a complicated, multi-tiered algorithm that takes us through a wide variety of boxes that might explain how one critically acclaimed band succeeds while another one does not, but it, too, ends in another big fat, “No one cares!” box. The artists who do not succeed probably went through a similar, frustrating algorithm that included paying their dues through exhaustive touring, spending mind-numbing hours in studios, doing radio interviews, and various other promotion efforts, until it ended in a big fat, “Thems the breaks” box to explain why they didn’t succeed. To the fans who, like me, vicariously wallowed in the misery of watching their favorite artist do everything required to succeed, only to end up in the bargain bin of record stores, hearing thems-the-breaks and no one cares doesn’t sit well. My advice to all of you is save your breath, and don’t waste your time trying to convince your world of the band’s virtues. It makes no sense to us, the critics, or the experts why some bands succeed where others do not. It can be as simple as time and place, looks, and a well-designed, comprehensive package that hits for whatever reasons. What we consider the greatest music of all time might be relatively boring to others, and music is as relative as comedy.