Your Ad Screams "Look At Me!"

[koganbot]

Las Vegas Weekly is a high-quality, glossy-cover free weekly newspaper with an emphasis on arts, entertainment and popular culture. Each week, 70,000 copies are distributed, reaching an estimated 273,000 readers. Weekly readers find hip culture and edgy journalism almost as important as buying houses, cars and home furnishings, which they do more than the average Las Vegan. [emphasis added]

Readers' Economic Impact in 2006
Women's Clothing $16,160,033
Men's Clothing $21,655,994
Shoes $24,140,905
Jewelry $10,663,490
Furniture/Mattresses $90,753,608
Home Improvement $101,946,672
Stereo Equipment $10,782,000
Televisions $26,337,934
Monthly Wireless/Cell Phone Bill $6,096,322
Weekly Grocery Purchases $12,626,042
Internet Purchases $58,824,044
Planned Auto Purchases in 2007
New Vehicle $452,567,500
Used Vehicle $161,642,900

Las Vegas Weekly readers drive our local economy when compared with the average adult. The average Weekly reader buys more houses, cars, TVs, stereos, computers and home furnishings each year. They are trend-setters open to technology and change. Las Vegas Weekly readers are informed decision makers — they are extremely loyal, dynamic and informed consumers — a passionate, hip, socially active group with ample disposable income and interests in art, music, cuisine, activities, services, sports and entertainment. Weekly readers are responsible — always on the go, working, traveling, exercising, reading, dating, having fun and exploring Las Vegas. Our readers attend concerts, movies and live performances and dine out more often than the average Las Vegan.

Your ad screams "Look at me!" from the page, in 300 dpi full-color on our HI-BRITE newsprint and glossy pages.

Demographics

Adult Men 65%
Adult Women 36%
Median Age 40.4
(21 – 49) 57%
Married 46%
Single 54%
College Educated 62%
Own Residence 59%
Annual Mean Household Income $80,900
Ratio Between Readers' Income And Mine (assuming I get paid as much as I was originally promised) 4:1

To change the subject, I just saw this post from Scott Woods over on the LVW comments thread to my Paris Is Our Vietnam piece:

"The point here is that the haters stimulate me to want to like Paris's music. I want to like her because I don't like her enemies.

Frank, I feel the same way about this, but I wonder if you think there's a danger here that what you write about the Paris album might end up being more reactive than proactive? (Or if such 'dangerousness' is even a problem?) I can probably think of a lot of well-written and thoughtful pieces of criticism that are much more reactive than proactive - i.e., critics writing about something because other critics have pushed them - or rather, pushed the artist or album which they're writing about - into a corner (a corner that you, the reacting critic, believes is bullshit, stupid, or even unfair). I'm not saying your own writing on Paris struck me as reactive, given that you've said lots about the album on its own merits, described the music very well, etc. Just wondering if this makes you at all uncomfortable being pushed into this type of corner. Or, conversely, does it energize you?

When I think of what I wrote about the Paris album on my year-end ballot last year, I could see how someone might think it's all a bit strenuous - that by (in part) responding to all the Paris dissing, I'm trying really hard to find counter-arguments - it's that reactive thing again. But I don't think that's a bad thing, necessarily. The fact is, though the Paris album wasn't my very favourite record of the year, it's the record I felt I was forced to think the hardest about. On the one hand, being pushed into the corner kind of rankles (can't we move beyond these dumb arguments already, about 'talentless bimbos' and whatnot?); on the other hand, when push comes to shove..."

And I just replied to Scott (though of course who knows if the comment will make it through the LVW system):

"Scott, you're getting ahead of me, since you're asking how this stuff affects what we SAY about the music while I'm still digging into how it affects what we FEEL and THINK. Public discourse is a whole other ball of wax. But in relation to my own question, your crucial sentence is 'it's the record I felt I was forced to think the hardest about.' I'd say the extra effort in itself - which usually means more listenings - will get you to like it more just because the more you attend to something the more you realize what's going on, so you're likely to have more of it reach its way into your feelings. Maybe if people had been calling JoJo and Ciara skanks and bitches and smelly little racists I'd have given them the extra listens and liked the experience of their stuff even more than I liked the Paris. (They each made my top ten, but lower than Paris, and I still think their CDs are way more uneven.) And the point, which I'm making in my next column, is that the way I experience music is neither immutable nor some sort of trustworthy bedrock."

Comments

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

Here's what I responded to that one...

Scott, I feel that my own writing on Paris (some of it linked above) was highly reactive to other people's criticisms, but (1) I'm not sure what an alternately "proactive" position would be, and (2) I needed a fairly strong sense of investment in the album as music first to be able to heighten my experiences with the album in the first place (I hesitate to pigeonhole these with simple enjoyment, more complex emotions/reactions running through my listening and certainly through ensuing discussions of Paris's album).

Case in point is K-Fed's album, released at the same time and included in a think piece at the time by Kelefa Sanneh in NYT. I listened to it, hated it. People have probably said some really awful (and similar to Paris-hate) things about Federline, and they can go right on saying them. And he can go right on publicly encouraging them to say them ( e.g. appearing in pro wrestling stunts as a heel -- funny, because one of the above links is me casting PARIS as a pro wrestling heel). I have no personal investment in him, and therefore no personal investment in what people say about his album.

Anyway, I'm digressing here, but my point is that any energizing factors, regardless of where it came from, or how reactive these impulses were, led to a deepening of my enjoyment. The end result is I listened more, and more closely, and grew to love the album when (as per my first reaction to it) I could have settled for think it was a decent dance album but otherwise not care so much.

Which I guess is another way of saying that reactive listening can lead one to find depth in music where haters the listener is reacting against refuse to see it. Better musical example is Ashlee Simpson, who I listened to largely because of the controversy she drew to herself -- and from Frank writing about her passionately at least in part in response to the controversy. Spurred by my curiosity about the kind of hysterical debate surrounding her, I listened more intently, and I came to understand the terms that Ashlee et al. were setting, and to understand how much emotional and intellectual depth there was there already, without me having just to react to her haters.

[(Anonymous)]

Dave, I'm not sure about the term "proactive" either. And in a way, even "reactive" is kinda so-what: we're human beings, we *react* to stuff (how can we not?). Maybe the split I was trying to grasp at (and it's not a clearly-defined split down the middle or anything) is something more like a blindfolded approach to hearing and feeling the music vs. an approach more dependent on the extra-musical knowledge, not just about the artist but about the prevailing opinions floating around about the artist (which in this case were overwhelmingly negative and dismissive). "Proactive" in my misguided usage would mean something like the former: hearing what the music does with little or no knowledge of (or interest in) who the artist is, which in turn forces you to describe and/or feel the music based on the thing itself--and not just reacting to thoughts which are already out there (I know this is never entirely possible, of course, and even less so with someone like Paris Hilton).

I think Frank, by pointing out that I've jumped the gun by trying to steer this towards "what we say," has also made me realize a disconnect in my own mind, which makes me uneasy and maybe is what led to my original (not very well focused) question in the first place. That is, there's a disconnect between my own personal level of comfort with Paris's modus operandi (I mean, I accept it wholesale--I don't care and I'm completely comfortable, for instance, with the possibility that her involvement in the music may be minimal) and what I feel is acceptable to think out loud about it in a review (anywhere other than one of your guys blogs or Poptimists, I guess). Or even amongst other people who aren't rock critics or even readers of music criticism: I practically got attacked last December when I told a bunch of co-workers over a Christmas lunch that I liked the Paris album. Everyone was incredulous, questioning my integrity, etc.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to be as wholesale-accepting of Paris's modus operandi as I am, or that I wish that were the case, but rather, that it makes me uneasy that I am *automatically* kind of pushed into a corner by feeling that way--not even stating it, just *feeling* it.

I'm sorry if I've drifted further off topic here. I need to read more Cure for Bedbugs, pronto.

scott woods

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

I struggle with this idea a bit, too, because on the one hand "blindfolded" listening is impossible, but on the other you do want to draw distinctions between "social baggage which should cause me to ignore this completely" and "social baggage which is irrelevant to the topic at hand" (imagine if all of Paris's detractors boycotted an action flick surreptitously filmed across the Mexican border to help cut costs/not insure stuntpeople/etc. on principle!).

But I think an important point to add to your argument is that music is in a unique position of changing our relationship to someone with all that social baggage. Some artists do their "cred moves" consciously to change who they are to the majority of their audience (lovers and haters alike) -- Mandy Moore, Christina Aguilera, now possibly Kelly Clarkson (who really is doing a logical extension of who she already was, and I hope people are receptive to the increasing darkness, which I'll bet she'll abandon somewhat next time round given the reception of "My December" so far). Likewise, Paris's album is precisely what made me pay attention to the social baggage in the first place, question it, because it was so NOT in line with what I was hearing. Although I should say that I had glimmers of this questioning already because I thought her reality show was very sharp and really funny; she seemed to have a kind of knowing shrewdness regarding self-parody that could also be interpreted as what everyone hates about her. Kevin Federline has done this, too, in a more obvious (and D-U-M) sort of way with his pro wrestling stint.

I'd recommend reading, of the recent posts, musings on one of Frank's earlier columns, where I talk about the more common reaction dichotomy of "like/ignore," and maybe the "My Humps" interview I did with my gf, which spawned a strange comment thread -- that holding a similar, if less vitriolic, position in the Big Pop Music Conversation We Have with Our Co-workers. (My co-workers all think it's hilarious that I listen to Paris; they seem more disconcerted that I'm listening to hyphy!!! Just bought my first pair of stunna shades, even!) Any post with a long comment thread is probably worth checking out (usually for the comment thread).

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

Re: blindfolding, the Poptimists community has done some really interesting blind experiments (recently the League of Pop) that do kind of push at these questions. When Lex found out that a song he voted for was actually by Keith Allen (jackass UK comedian and father of Lily Allen) he wanted to go back and untick on principle! But was not allowed to.

Similarly, when my friend Ross played "Not Leaving without You" at a party, everyone danced to it but no one knew who it was. They just enjoyed the music. Problem is, you can't be blind forever, sooner or later someone's (probably) going to tell you what it is you were just listening to, and the experiment will have effectively ended.

[koganbot]

Don't think it's ever been confirmed that the track is by Keith Allen (Sex Boots Dread "Tickle Tune").

I wouldn't say the experiment ends once you've found out whom you're listening to; I'd say the experiment is barely getting underway, since your subsequent reactions will be affected by your reactions under the blindfold. If your opinion under the blindfold doesn't match up with your previous opinion of the performer, something will adjust in your psyche; either a reevaluation of what happened while blindfolded, or a reevaluation of the performer. (Or so cognitive dissonance theory asserts.)

Dance floor often is a blindfold test. In the hip-hop clubs in the '70s, DJ Afrika Bambaataa would work into his set breakbeats from Grand Funk's "Inside Looking Out" and the Stones' "Honky Tonk Woman" and the Monkees' "Mary Mary" - "just the beat part where they'd go 'Mary Mary where are you going?' - and they'd start going crazy. I'd say, 'You just danced to the Monkees.' They'd say, 'You liar. I didn't dance to no Monkees.'" (But simple denial usually isn't effective.)

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

your subsequent reactions will be affected by your reactions under the blindfold.

Yeah, this is sort of my point with Paris, too, that I had enough blindfoldiness (like "truthiness"?) to get into the music and then defend against all hataz. But "blindfold" is a sort of absolute distinction that usually only works in experiment-mode -- or sometimes in a "I've heard this song before but I have no idea who it is" sense, but usually when the song GRABS you you go outta your way to figure out who made it! So sometimes you're closer to "blindfold" than others, but usually you're not totally blindfolded (and as you say, you never are if you count other musical reference points etc.).

Woulda loved to have been at that very Ross party w/ "Not Leaving Without You" (which after about a year went from being under my radar to being about the second-best -- sometimes I think best -- song on the album)...but only heard about the event secondhand.

[koganbot]

In my book I've got this passage:

Although both sides in the Poison-Metallica spat claim that looks don't matter, each judges the bands on appearance. Of course, you can say, "Excuse me, Frank; these people are not great thinkers," but I'd counter by saying that I've got the same "contradiction" too - not that I think that hairstyle both does and doesn't matter, since I know it matters; but I'm uncertain how much.

I assume that I will never be certain how much "hairstyle" - or "baggage" - matters, nor should I be, since what matters varies from circumstance to circumstance. What blindfold tests do is to protect me from the hairstyle overdetermining my response. But blindfold tests can also cut me off from understanding what's going on in the music, since they cut out some knowledge of what the music might be responding to (the performer's previous work, how this work has been viewed by others, etc.). Of course, I can then rectify this by taking off the blindfold (and doing research).

And of course blindfold tests don't shut out my past responses to similar sounds or my knowledge of how such sounds play in the world - which is fortunate, because if such things were shut out I'd be deaf to whole hunks of the richness and emotion in the music.

give paris one more chance

[worldofagwu.livejournal.com]

- i've been really q.surprised at the amount of vitriol that i've seen thrown at paris h ( - & the gloating when she got put in jail ) in the 2 months i've been reading & posting to LJ - i don't see it so much in my "real life" - or at least not in such undiluted form

so it's refreshing for me to read SOMETHING goob abt her on LJ, ta

i haven't heard the album but stars are blind = a decent pop single