Thursday, May 27, 2010

Mick Jagger on the Economics of Music


Another reason to like Mick Jagger and the Stones: the man is smart. Here's a bit from what he observes regarding music sales on an interview with the BBC:

...people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn’t make any money out of records because record companies wouldn’t pay you! They didn’t pay anyone!

Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone.

So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn’t.

More here.


subscribe Subscribe to HetPer

subscribe Subscribe to Gendering the Media Podcast

Sex and the City: A Review




It was more like Snores in the City. I agreed to go watch it as it was very hot today and the house was especially hot. Since I have no patience for extreme heat, I agreed to go to the theater as it is very cool there and in the meantime the house would get cool, too.


I think it's been a while since the last time I was this bored in a movie theater (I believe Nine was the one that literally put me to sleep). SatC goes on and on and on. I found it, for lack of a better word, boring and inconsequential. One of the reasons why I used to think the original HBO series was bearable was because we basically had a 28-minute weekly episode that allowed us to take a wee break from the tedium of some weekly chores. The things I reacted to positively were the quick pace of story-telling and the costumes.

The second installment of the franchise is ridiculously absurd and the self-mythologizing characters lose every ounce of relatability and relevance. Lavishness and love of labels are central in the film and in the end all we get is a parade of costumes, which are in actuality beautifully put together by stylist Patricia Field, and no actual substance. Field has done her job wonderfully yet again. I cannot say the same for the screenwriters. I did not get the point of the narrative because, well, I think they considered the need for an actual story to be so very last season. So, what is this film about?

Well, other then the costumes, I really cannot say I know. Here are a few things that I kind of vaguely remember. Let's see. Carrie's been married for two years and there's already trouble in paradise, she tells us. Her Mr. Big likes to stay home, enjoy home-cooked meals and watch the news and old movies on TV. What a horrible man! She, on the other hand, wants to go out all the time and finds take-out to be a bit of an eye sore. On the other hand, she has no desire or interest in cooking or eating in. Ever. Their apartment is beautifully decorated and the Prestons have not been touched by the recession, at all. In addition, they also have Carrie's older apartment so if they do need to get space from one another in their already spacious apartment, they can.

Carrie's problems, she tells us, stem from fear of becoming too traditional and, oh no, boring and bored. Very relatable, indeed. In Sex and the City 'reality', there's no mortgage and job market troubles. Work, shmork. Let's all sip a cosmo while dressed in Dior. What a non-story. Yawn! I try to find something good about the films I see but as far as this one goes, sorry folks, I'm at a loss. The costumes are very well put together. The rest is completely forgettable as it's only been a few hours since I saw it and I can't really recall much. And good memory is apparently my forte, so go figure.


subscribe Subscribe to HetPer

subscribe Subscribe to Gendering the Media Podcast