Young Martin Cizmar™ notices us!
PHXated has another life as a writer on various pop-culture issues.
Last Friday, I published a review of the new autobiography of Rolling Stone Keith Richards in the online magazine Slate.
I was grateful it got a little attention.
But readers here know can imagine there’s nothing better than catching the eye of New Times' Young Martin Cizmar™—and this we succeeded in doing the other day.
Indeed, Young Martin displayed a puckishness that we, frankly, didn’t think he had in him:
Our own Mr. Wyman […] recently wrote a book review for Slate, a well-respected online publication. In what can only be described as a brilliant bit of subversive humor, he wrote the piece in the voice of Mick Jagger, the band’s well-known singer. The man who is possibly Phoenix’s most cherished and respected blogger wrote an editor’s note at the top of the piece saying that the piece was pulled from a note delivered to him as a “UPS package containing a typed manuscript.”
Martin, displaying reporting chops he doesn’t always use, also digs up one of the few commenters in the world who didn’t like it!:
“I won’t quote the rest of the article, nor will I post a link to it, because it’s silly nonsense that reeks of a juvenile prank.
7:25 AM
More on Young Martin Cizmar™'s anti-intern screed!
You’ll recall that New Times' music editor, Martin Cizmar, wrote an intemperate screed about his former intern, Sarah Ventre, on the Up on the Sun blog the other day.
So intemperate was it that the screed was taken down after what PHXated hears was a minor uproar inside New Times HQ … leaving no sign that it ever had existed.
But PHXated, for whom all things Cizmarian are not just catnip, but catnip with chocolate frosting and gossamer dust on top, found it and posted it on Thursday.
The upshot of the post was that Martin was ashamed of Ventre.
She’d written a piece for the NPR web site, where she’s now an intern in D.C., in which she describes sitting down and listening to Pet Sounds for the first time.
Yeah, we know—what a stupid thing for Martin to be upset about, right?
It wasn’t like Ventre had been passing herself off as a Beach Boys expert—or that Young Martin had unearthed the glaring lack of exposure through detective work.
Martin lacks many things; perspective is one of them.
If Ventre was, I don’t know, covering the state capitol for New Times and wrote that’d she’d never visited the building, and had never talked to a state legislator—that you could get mad about.
That’s a comprehensive failure.
But there are somewhere between hundred and a thousand what you’d call essential rock albums any critic should listen to—and that’s just the basics. By definition some of these will be heard later than the others.
Anyway, we were perusing Jay Bennett’s “Nothing Not New” on Up on the Sun when something struck us.
It’s a review of the new Belle & Sebastian album. It was posted last Tuesday.
Here’s how it began:
Sometimes, after a hard day spent arguing with co-workers about which records people who write about music should be exposed to, you just want something breezy, something feel-good. Enter the new record by longtime indie darlings Belle and Sebastian.
We think he’s talking about Young Martin!
Given that Young Martin’s jeremiad was taken down without explanation, this is the first indication we’ve had from inside New Times that the post did cause some heated discussions.
Bennet concludes his piece:
Belle and Sebastian are one of those bands I’d heard a lot about but never listened to. You know what else I’ve never listened to? OK Computer by Radiohead. Or damn near 70 percent of Pitchfork’s top 10 records of the 2000s. Does that make me unqualified to write about music? Perhaps it does. One of my co-workers thinks you need to be well versed in “the canon,” a not-quite-clearly defined list of records (culled from the big four of rock writing: Rolling Stone, Spin, Pitchfork, New Music Express) that every rock writer need listen to in order to know what the hell they’re writing about. You know, records like Sgt. Pepper, Exile on Main Street, Nevermind, Pet Sounds, Never Mind the Bollocks, etc. In other words, are you qualified to write about pop music if you’ve never listened to Pet Sounds?
Great question!
PHXated’s opinion, if anyone cares, is that a writer should have something interesting to say and the chops to say it with.
It’s a sliding scale. The trouble with the writing of people who write about music without having heard “the canon”—and the same goes for criticism generally—is that it tends to be trite and solipsistic.
It’s more about the writer than the music. On the other hand, a good writer who is interesting in and of him- or herself can do it.
Now, Young Martin, for example, has listened to Pet Sounds.
But you’ll recall PHXated recently ridiculed a piece he’d written saying that 1994 was the best year ever for pop music.
It was pretty easy to demonstrate fairly conclusively that 1994 wasn’t even the best year for pop music of the early 1990s.
In that case, Young Martin was publicly exhibiting such solipsism. Of course he’s entitled to his opinion; but it was pretty clear from the piece that he was unaware (or hadn’t processed) a lot of the other aesthetic movements of the time. You couldn’t take the piece seriously, in other words, on its own terms.
There was something missing from his piece, and it wasn’t a familiarity with Pet Sounds.
It was thinking.
That’s the answer to Bennett’s question.
10:42 AM
We unearth the suppressed Young Martin Cizmar™ attack on his former intern!
In the case of relating the sordid tale of Young Martin Cizmar™ and the Mysteriously Disappearing Blog Post Intemperately Attacking His Former Intern, we noted that the deleted post wasn’t even coming up on the Google cache.
After some furious programming/hacking/maneuvering and then a sheer accident, we found it.
It comes exactly as billed, complete with utter humorlessness and Jayson Blair reference.
Note that Ventre is all of 24, and that she wrote the piece saying she hadn’t yet given Pet Sounds the attention it deserved, and was thereupon listening to it.
She hadn’t pretended to have heard it, and she wasn’t caught out, so to speak, by Cizmar. She’s written the article, in public, about it.
Rebuttal
Former New Times Music Intern Cops to Never Having Heard Pet Sounds on NPR Blog
By Martin Cizmar
Tue., Oct. 12 2010 @ 12:44PM
?Sarah Ventre seemed like a great intern.
She was hard-working, talented and friendly. Many of us at Phoenix New Times were quite fond of her. The team of bloggers that brings you Up On The Sun was all incredibly happy for Sarah when she was offered a coveted internship at NPR’s All Songs Considered. We were proud, even.
We were fooled.
Today, Sarah penned a blog post for NPR admitting that until very recently she’d never listened to The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds all the way through. That’s right, during the entire time she worked (note the past tense) at Phoenix New Times writing about music she’d never bothered to listen to the greatest album of all time. I am personally ashamed and would like to take this opportunity to publicly rebuke Sarah and distance myself and this blog from Sarah’s work.
As music editor, I must now apologize for having provided Sarah with this forum. She betrayed our trust and made fools of us all. That’s not an excuse, only a pathetic attempt at an apology.
I’m so sorry, readers.
I know you expect better from us and you’ll get it in the future. Up On The Sun’s staff realizes the importance and spectacularity (existent adjectives fail me) of Pet Sounds and I will personally see to it that everyone who writes for this blog in the future listens to it at least once, in my office while I witness it if need be. Know that I am myself a dedicated Beach Boys fan who has interviewed both Brian Wilson and Al Jardine within the last six months and recently used Pet Sounds in an only half-joking argument for Brian Wilson’s sainthood. I have the album cover hanging on the wall of my office. Sarah sat facing it many times; I can only imagine what was going through her head as she gazed at it blankly.
Please, readers, do not let Sarah’s shameful admission tar us all. To fans of Xtra Ticket, the Grateful Dead cover band Sarah famously lambasted, I offer a special apology. We’ll send out this semester’s intern, Lenni Rosenblum, who, incidentally, loves jam bands, to give the guys another listen.
Seriously, everyone, I’m ashamed and filled with sorrow.
I imagine I feel somewhat like Jayson Blair’s editor must have felt.
Except Jayson Blair had probably listened to Pet Sounds all the way through at least once.
All of PHXated’s writings on Young Martin Cizmar are here.
10:38 AM
Did Young Martin Cizmar, Intrepid Journalist™, go too far?
PHXated World HQ is buzzing with reports about strange doings on New Times' Up on the Sun blog, which covers music and is the dubious domain of Young Martin Cizmar, the Boy Who Always Takes Things Too Far™.
Readers of the blog will remember Sarah Ventre, who contributed regularly in addition to doing hardship duty behind the scenes as Young Martin’s intern.
PHXated has met Ventre and found her, aside from some lingering indications of Stockholm Syndrome, relatively unscathed by the experience.
Anyway, Ventre is now in D.C., interning for NPR. She recently wrote something for the organization’s web site, part of a series of interns writing on music. Ventre wrote about how she wasn’t familiar with the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds, but on listening to it found it to be …
… quite good:
The more I listened, the more I realized that the album has virtually no moments of silence in it. Each song is filled with stacked sounds that provide a fluid backdrop to the guitars and vocals that The Beach Boys are so well-known for. There is a constant, subtle motion that carries the music, and it’s easy to see why people get so swept in.
Now, as PHXated hears the story, Young Martin read Ventre’s piece and let loose a screed of invective on the Up on the Sun blog.
His issue, apparently, wasn’t her thoughts on the album.
It was that Ventre had been writing professionally about music for some time, and that this was outrageous considering she’d never listened to Pet Sounds.
Cizmar compared her in some way to Jayson Blair, the NYT’s plagiarist and fabricator, along the way and said he was sorry he’d ever employed her. The posting was serious, not jovial.
He underlined the point by posting the item on his Facebook page, tagging Ventre so her friends would see the attack as well.
Well, you might think; let’s see this post!
That’s the strange twist to the story. The blog post is no longer up on the NT site.
If you Google “Cizmar Ventre Jayson Blair”, you get this:
But the link—to a story apparently entitled “Former New Times Music Intern Cops to Never Having Heard Pet Sounds"—is dead.
… and, mysteriously, there’s no Google cache of it!
As readers might know, it’s a little odd, on the internet, to try to remove published material without alerting readers to the fact and offering an explanation why.
PHXated hears that the post stirred no little controversy inside New Times, and that the post was removed by higher-ups at the paper.
More details as we get them!
All of PHXated’s writings on Young Martin Cizmar are here.
9:53 AM
For Young Martin Cizmar™ fans only! You might want to sit down ...
Our Martin wrote a record review this a.m. It’s on an album called Bomb, by a singer-songwriter named Jeff Arundel.
It’s .. kinda good.
No, really.
Martin begins with a thesis statement—he tells us that Arudel had been through some painful times since his past album, and that this all informed the new one.
He follows up that cogent encapsulation with … six paragraphs of explication, noting and explaining the album’s main songs, often juggling citations from both the lyrics and the music to make his point.
And then the review ..
… ends with an equally cogent closing paragraph, which not only reiterates his opening rhetorical gambit but even, in a nice little touch, adds a zinger on the same thing at the end.
We almost want to quote that graf, but the whole thing isn’t long, and it’s worth reading even if you’re not a music fan.
Everything about Young Martin Cizmar™ is here.
8:14 AM
Gangplank continues to hate-blog, er, politely ask Martin Cizmar what in the heck he was talking about
More plaintive questions from a Gangplank member, after Young Martin Cizmar™ tweeted yesterday that the place was full of “hate bloggers"—and later expanded on the contention by explaining he was talking about people in "leadership positions.”
As PHXated explained at the time, we’ve had some passing experience with the group, a digital business incubator based in downtown Chandler, and have generally found the place to be a bit wholesome—anything but a nest of haters.
Various Gangplank members pressed Young Martin for details yesterday.
Below is an interesting exchange from last night.
For those not familiar with the arcana of Twitter nomenclature and orthography, the “@” name in bold is the person making the tweet; the “@” name that comes up in the tweet proper is a reference to other tweeters. When it’s at the beginning of the tweet, it generally means that the tweet is directed at that person.
For connoisseurs of Young Martin’s rhetorical dog-fighting, the following is pure catnip:
@willbradley @phxmusicdotcom I dont think you realize how many awesome people are “at” Gangplank and subsequently offended by your original tweet…
@PHXmusicdotcom @willbradley I would assume their first thought would be ‘well, he’s not talking about me, I’m an awesome person…’
@willbradley @PHXmusicdotcom really? Not “who is this guy and why is he talking smack about some of the coolest friends I know?”
@PHXmusicdotcom @willbradley I think the people I was talking about didn’t wonder too much about who I meant… I also don’t think you think I meant you.
@PHXmusicdotcom @PHXmusicdotcom I think you meant “everyone affiliated with @gangplank” when you said it. Either that, or: http://is.gd/fyTH
@willbradley @PHXmusicdotcom then you clarified that you meant leaders, which narrows it down to ~4 and is still vague and insulting to 100s of ppl.
@PHXmusicdotcom @willbradley Dude, I said “or is that just an image some members are cultivating?” in the first tweet.
@PHXmusicdotcom @willbradley I was hoping someone would tell me “no, what those people are up to is not what we’re about!” or maybe “Hellz yeah we are!”
@willbradley @PHXmusicdotcom dude if you hate @tdhurst just say so, no need to be all vague about it.
PHXated thinks that Bradley here has put his finger on something. Tyler Hurst, who tweets under the name tdhurst, is a frequent target of Cizmarian invective.
PHXated’s hunch is that Young Martin thinks Hurst has something to do with Gangplank, which he doesn’t.
@willbradley @PHXmusicdotcom I’m telling you now, I still have no idea which one of my friends (or me) you’re hating on, and I take offense.
@PHXmusicdotcom @willbradley If I wanted to say that I would have said that. I didn’t bc that’s not my point.
Here, however, Martin seems to be dismissing the Hurst theory, albeit in unconvincing fashion.
@PHXmusicdotcom @willbradley My question is whether people like that who are repping the group hardcore and inviting people to speak, are what it’s about?
Another interesting Cizmaranian undertone. PHXated, another perennial nettle in Young Martin’s journalistic sock, was recently “invited to speak” at Gangplank. Could it be that Martin, bedeviled by Hurst and PHXated, is conflating them, wholly unfairly, with Gangplank, and taking it out on the wholesome Chandlerites?
@willbradley @PHXmusicdotcom @gangplank is people going to a place and working on things together. That’s pretty much it. No hateblog required.
@PHXmusicdotcom @willbradley Well then that’s great. I’ve had some bad experiences with affiliates but keep hearing this positive stuff. So I wondered aloud
@willbradley @PHXmusicdotcom way to wonder aloud. Try hanging out at GP before you trash us. Or, after you trash us. Door’s always open.
7:24 AM
Young Martin Cizmar™ slurs Gangplank, gets nose burned
The tweet this a.m. came out of nowhere:
@PHXMusicdotcom Is everyone affiliated with @gangplank a creepy hateblogger or is that just an image some members are cultivating?
@PHXMusicdotcom is the nom de tweet of PHXated covergirl Young Martin Cizmar™, whose every deed we find interesting.
Gangplank is an digital business incubator. It’s based in downtown Chandler.
To say that the people who work there or who are putting together business startups at the space are “creepy hatebloggers is … odd.
PHXated has been down there two or three times and found everyone casually supportive and upbeat. (PHXated was even invited to speak recently, and had a great and interactive time discussing the growing influence of Scruffy McPoochie at the Arizona Republic and the future of online journalism, among other things.)
Anyway, it’s kind of—what’s the word—oh yeah, insane to use a phrase like “creepy hatebloggers” in association with this unfailingly positive and wholesome outfit.
As might be expected, Gangplank members responded with… well, restraint:
@hepnova: @PHXmusicdotcom : I think I speak for the majority of @Gangplank associates when I say that hate blogging has zero to do with the GP ethos.
@BrandonFranklin @PHXmusicdotcom I don’t know why you’d even think that. @dneighbors is far from a “hate blogger”, as am I.
@BrandonFraklin @PHXmusicdotcom and neither is @GRTaylor2 , nor a large slew of other @Gangplank -affiliated folks.
@Conrey @PHXmusicdotcom human nature to guess the ideals of a large community based off of one or two people? Also who hateblogs from GP?
@Conrey followed up this display of hate-blogging with the following intemperate tweet to Cizmar:
@PHXmusicdotcom also if you’d rather discuss not in public – feel free to email me directly
… and pressed the point home with this jeremiad:
@Conrey @PHXmusicdotcom I haven’t seen where you share your experiences is the thing. As someone passionate about GP-I’d like to effort to resolve
Of course, to silence those questioners, all Martin had to do was cite just one or two instances of Gangplank-affiliated “hate-blogging.”
This he did not do. Instead, incredibly, he pressed his point:
@PHXmusicdotcom Well @GRTaylor2 is certainly a good guy… Maybe you, @BrandonFranklin, and @dneighbors are too. Hate to judge based on a few folks, but…
And then followed that up with:
@PHXmusicdotcom @BrandonFranklin also let me say I am talking about people with leadership positions, not just randoms
Notice that Our Martin has as yet not substantiated his claim of “hate bloggers” bivouacked at Gangplank, but has widened his initial claim to include people in “leadership positions.”
What we like about Martin are these qualities: He’s got thin skin and a glass jaw, and he keeps coming back for more.
We nodded in familiarity at Martin’s next tweet:
@PHXmusicdotcom @conrey I’m done discussing.
It is a sentiment he has expressed to use at PHXated as well, and has always been, as here, merely a preamble to more discussing:
@PHXmusicdotcom @conrey I shared my experience. I’m content to believe it’s just a few bad apples and try to reserve judgement. Hope others do as well.
(Note he has still not revealed who the “bad apples” are.)
A few minutes later, he begins to beat a retreat:
@PHXmusicdotcom @jamesarcher I asked a question – a loaded one, but a question – I got an answer & will refrain from judging the org based on my experience
(You’ll remember Martin’s original question wasn’t so much loaded as rhetorical: “Is everyone affiliated with @gangplank a creepy hateblogger or is that just an image some members are cultivating?”)
By mid-afternoon his tweets tapered off, after claiming he’d sent explanatory emails to the parties involved. PHXated will share his explanation if he gets one.
4:51 PM
1We Read Young Martin Cizmar™ So You Don't Have To: Surfer Blood
Young Martin Cizmar™ reviews Surfer Blood at the Clubhouse on the New Times site.
Our friend Tuscon Toby encapsulates it for us:
Surfer Blood at Clubhouse Music Venue Last Night
For the first six graphs of a 14-graph review, I’ll write about a phenomenon I call “bi-coastal indie band naming conventions.” This band’s name has a variation of “surf” in it; others use words like “beach.”
I find that interesting and confusing.
Surfer Blood reminds me of Weezer. I just saw Weezer in concert and wrote a review. I wasn’t clear whether I liked Weezer but this band reminds me of Weezer.
There were two songs in particular that I remember. One song was the band’s biggest single and the crowd seemed to really enjoy it. The other song I remember was in the encore and I was standing by a man who enjoyed it a lot.
Previously, in “We Read Martin Cizmar So You Don’t Have To”:
Green Day at Cricket Pavillion.
Everything about Young Martin Cizmar™ is here.
9:57 AM
We Read Martin Cizmar So You Don't Have To: Weezer
Young Martin Cizmar™ reviews Weezer at the Fall Frenzy on the New Times site.
Our friend Tuscon Toby encapsulates it for us:
Weezer at Fall Frenzy Last Night
Sometimes I read New York magazine (not the actual magazine though). One important fact about all bands is the year I first saw them perform. Weezer is no different. I saw them in 2002. Here’s the thing: I’m now going to natter on about an older album of theirs I like, which will render my assessment of the rest of the show unintelligible. Some people like to say “here’s the thing” right before they say something important. I like to use “here’s the thing” right before I say something incoherent. I tried to write down all the songs so I could show you a set list, but I couldn’t keep track of them. Then I realized there’s a website that does that. Here’s the link. Here’s the thing — I sort of like Weezer now even though I don’t like them very much.
Previously, in “We Read Martin Cizmar So You Don’t Have To”:
Green Day at Cricket Pavillion.
Everything about Young Martin Cizmar™ is here.
10:29 AM
Martin, short: We Read Martin Cizmar So You Don't Have To
From PHXated correspondent Tucson Toby, one of Young Martin Cizmar™’s biggest fans:
Green Day at Cricket Wireless Pavillion Last Night
I saw Green Day last night. I saw them first when I was very young and liked them a lot. I still like them though they have changed. (Inappropriate literary reference). They played this song and this song and this song. This song is from this album. I would have liked it if they played this song and this song.
#
9:19 AM
Young Martin Cizmar™, Intrepid Journalist, stands by his story!
Young Martin’s post on the New Times blog about how Body Count’s song “Cop Killer” has never been available is engendering a lot of comment.
PHXated discussed the many ways Young Martin was wrong here.
We understand Martin’s too busy to read all the stuff we write about him, so we were happy to see a commenter, doing business under the name “anonymous,” bring up some of the same issues:
nice research martin.
according to wikipedia, it was on the original release of the body count album, then Ice T himself decided to recall it and release the album without the song because the controversy eclipsed the musical merit of the album.
i’m no journalist, but even i can use wikipedia. first, you’re wrong in saying the song was never available, it was. next you say it was censored, which implies someone in power wouldn’t let iced tea release the song, which is not the case at all.
Martin responded with Cizmarian asperity:
Martin Cizmar says:
I never said what you’re claiming I said.
This is way too complex for you, but I’ll break it down:
/1. The list is about things that have never happened during the lifetime of the college class of 2014.
/2. During the 18 years those kids have been alive the recording has never been available in any format whatsoever.
/3. Obviously it was originally released or there would never have been a stink to begin with — this was pre-leak, pre-internet — in order for a song to become an issue it had to actually be pressed and sold. It was. Duh.
/4. Pressure was put on Ice-T and his record label to remove the track. Do you or I know what happened exactly? No. But the fact that Ice-T released it, and people started threatening the people who run his record label with boycotts, and they control his paychecks, creates the censorship. It’s more what’s known as a “chilling effect” from non-government actors than state-sponsored “you can’t say this” type censorship.
So, yes, I was exactly right in that I said it has never been sold during the lifetime of these kids (which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, READ THE POST) and that the song has been successfully censored since.
After all, how would that argument about the album and the musical merit, etc. apply to a 99-cent iTunes download?
Martin’s response is a keeper for Cizmarologists.
The insult to someone who had taken the time to write in and correct him.
The doubling down on stupid.
The numerous inaccuracies.
As PHXated noted, Martin’s main crime was not to have explained the Mindlist Mindset List zen correctly. He does in his response. He didn’t in the orignal post.
Yet Martin says he’d been “exactly” right.
When Martin uses the word “exactly,” it reminds me of that line from The Princess Bride:
“I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
For example:
So, yes, I was exactly right in that I said it has never been sold during the lifetime of these kids (which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, READ THE POST) and that the song has been successfully censored since.
There are many wrong statements there. He never said it had never been sold during the lifetime of those kids. The word lifetime doesn’t appear in the post, and neither does any similar construction.
It is, in fact, what he didn’t say.
His repeating the assertion, even in capital letters, doesn’t make it any truer.
Neither does the word “Duh.”
Also, as PHXated explained, the song wasn’t “censored.” It was released! That’s the other reason I don’t think Marty knew that the song actually had been available.
How could anyone (Warner Brothers, I guess) censor something when… they had released it?
And even if they did it hadn’t been successfully censored because … as PHXated noted, it’s widely available on mp3 blogs, and even on iTunes in a live version.
Also, the record had been out a long time. it’s not like there were only 10,000 copies sold or anything. You could get it in a used record store. Or steal your older brother’s copy.
Martin’s account of his use of the word “censorship” is interesting. What he calls “chilling effect” I call free speech.
Ice-T, who is a bonehead, is allowed to record a song called “Cop Killer.” Folks who don’t like it are allowed to protest it.
Warners, in turn, is allowed to stop selling the song if it wants. It’s a free country!
May we say, in conclusion, that Our Marty could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he’d just said:
“Oh, of course. I should have made that clearer in the original post. Will fix.”
p.s.: The Beloit College thingee is called the Mindset List. I called it the Mindlist originally. Will fix!
9:24 AM
Confidential to Young Martin Cizmar™: Don't believe everything you read on the internets!
Young Martin Cizmar, Award Winning Journalist™, was stunned to learn about a searing instance of censorship yesterday.
He immediately took to his digital press in the sky to protest.
Young Martin is a watchdog, of sorts, on this issue.
We blush to remember that even PHXated has come under a discomfiting Cizmarian gaze for similar crimes.
Martin was misinformed, of course, but still.
In his latest case, Our Martin had just been informed that an old song called “Cop Killer,” done by Ice-T’s then metal band, Body Count, waaay back in the early 1990s, had never been available on a recording.
“Wait, You Still Can’t Buy a Copy of "Cop Killer” By Ice-T and Body Count on ANY Format?
Young Martin was stunned:
That’s right, Ice T’s controversial song, recorded with his LA Metal band Body Count, has been successfully censored for 18 years.
That’s despicable.
Martin learned this from a silly little report called “The Mindlist,” done by some folks at Beloit College.
The Mindlist marvels that time has passed and things change.
The setup is that incoming students, being only eighteen or so, aren’t familiar with things that happened more than, uh, eighteen years ago.
To enjoy the list, you have to pretend that incoming college students have no sense of curiosity and don’t avail themselves of the myriad information services at their disposal to learn about the past, but whatever.
Its examples range from the thuddingly obvious:
Email is just too slow, and they seldom if ever use snail mail.
… to the thuddingly labored:
“Go West, Young College Grad” has always implied “and don’t stop until you get to Asia…and learn Chinese along the way.”
Young Martin jumped on this entry:
‘Cop Killer’ by rapper Ice-T has never been available on a recording.
He seemed not to apprehend—and in any case didn’t vouchsafe to readers—what PHXated just explained, that the list-makers were looking at that narrow eighteen-year period.
He didn’t seem to appreciate that “Cop Killer' had of course been released.
It was on the Body Count record, which came out, uh, nineteen years ago.
Ice-T was trying to be controversial and push the envelope in the naughty rap realm of the time.
He succeeded, and got his little nosed burned in the understandable furor that erupted. He said then, and says now, that it was his decision to pull the song off the album, not that of his label, which was Warner Brothers.
Also, even if Warners had made him pull the song, it’s not “censorship.” It’s their label, and they can release or not release what they want.
And they put it out in the first place!
After all the work Beloit and Young Martin put into this non-issue, it feels a bit churlish to point out …
… the song is available all sorts of places. You can get a live version of it on the iTunes Store, for example.
Or download it from one of more than a dozen mp3 blogs listed just here, on Elbo.ws.
And finally, let’s remember that some of these tough-talking anti-police rap guys, Ice-T prominent among them, were chuckleheads.
The complete PHXated Young Martin Cizmar™ archive is here.
7:44 AM
For Young Martin Cizmar™ fans only!
The good news is that Young Martin Cizmar, Award-Winning Journalist, writes a big New Times story today, all by himself.
The bad news is that it’s about a Twitter war between himself and, I’m not making this up, Frankie Muniz’s girlfriend, a publicist whose only client is Frankie Muniz.
(If you don’t know who Frankie Muniz is the article is mighty fine reading indeed!)
4:34 PM
Young Martin Cizmar™—Author!?!
From Grub Street, NY mag’s food blog, emphasis added:
The requisites of hipsterdom are ever-changing (you can’t like things once they’ve gone mainstream), but the demographic’s one constant is and always will be a whip-thin physique — the better to rock a look of apathetic disdain while zipping around on your fixed-gear. So those whose super-skinny jeans encase seriously uncool love
handles will give thanks that writer Martin Cizmar has sold Chubster, which Publishers Marketplace describes as an “appropriately snarky weight-loss and lifestyle guide for hipsters looking to shed pounds and stay cool,” to Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Expect the core program to center around a regimen of street-cart tacos, Old Granddad, and cigarettes. [Publishers Marketplace (subscription required)]
PHXated does not portend to comment on physical attributes; but it is fair in this context to mention that sources close to Young Martin say that he has, through no little internal fortitude and strength of character, lost some hundred pounds recently and is eminently qualified to write such a tome, at least personal-experience-wise.
PHXated must say as well that, at our summit last week at the New Times party, Cizmar looked pretty good—much slimmer than Mouth by Southwest’s shot of Martin, above.
4:36 PM
Dark deeds at PHXated! Young Martin Cizmar™ alleges nefarious comment censoring!
Young Martin Cizmar, Award Winning Journalist™, has posted a classically Cizmarianistic comment on PHXated, in response to my recent post about his fascinating essay on the Beach Boys.
I want to repost it here so it gets the attention it deserves, in all its one-paragraph glory.
I will have more to say about it later, but for the nonce I want to address just Young Martin’s charge in his first few indignant sentences to the effect that your host is not publishing all of the site’s comments.
There are exactly two legitimate comments in the site’s queue that have not been posted.
Both, I must confess, are about Young Martin.
But since they take as their chief point of departure the subject of Young Martin’s Penis™ or Young Martin’s sucking someone else’s penis, respectively, I didn’t think they were appropriate to post.
I wanted to encourage a more elevated tone in PHXated’s comments fora.
I would also note that in the past when Young Martin has commented, PHXated has bent over backward to give them their own post. The first time, in fact, this reposting was accompanied by this:
“The note below was originally placed here as a comment, but it deserves a higher profile. I had my say; It’s only fair that Cizmar have the last word.”
Hardly the actions of a dastardly comment-denier!
Anyway, Young Martin’s latest missive follows.
His Beach Boy’s essay is here.
PHXated’s comment on that essay is here.
PHXated’s complete commentary of the life and work of Martin Cizmar is here.
First, Bill, I’m going to echo comments I’ve heard privately from others and vow that if you don’t remove the vetting process for your comments I’m done leaving them here. I’ve heard allegations of you not posting certain things which, in addition to being intellectually dishonest, is ridiculous. I’m sure the 12 readers you get a day won’t mind looking at a few spam comments from time to time if that means we can freely discuss your work without threat of a heavy-handed moderator. Second, perhaps not surprisingly, your basic point about homerism is undone by your misunderstanding of the word. Not being very familiar with sports jargon, and apparently not being resourceful enough to put it in proper context with the use of the interwebs, you write that" “‘Homerism,’ as I understand the term, is derived from the more common word ‘homer,’ a slang term for someone who would give brownie points to something for being local.” The problem? Like most things you write about, you’re missing a huge piece of the puzzle. A “Homer” is not someone who gives “brownie points.” That would probably be called a “Fanboy,” depending on the context. From Urban Dictionary: “Someone who shows blind loyalty to a team or organization, typically ignoring any shortcomings or faults they have.” The whole point of calling someone a “homer,” you can hopefully now understand, is that you’re alleging they’re unaware of their subconscious but obvious preference. They’re blindly loyal. In the reverse of that, “reverse-homerism,” I called it, someone shows blind preference to the more exotic offering. So, working with that definition (we’ll call it “The Accurate Definition”) you can see that your whole argument falls apart. The non-coincidence I’m talking about is not a “dark international deed,” nor could anyone who knows what the word Homer mean think that. It’s about the fact that most American critics tend to laud British artists a little more than their own, and vice-versa. It’s a weird phenomenon, but hopefully one you’re familiar with. I’m hesitant to make any bigger points about this to you given your inability to understand the basics. So, yeah, you seem to be asserting that I’m some sort of tin foil hat idiot who is assigning dark motives to Rolling Stone editors when, in reality, the problem is that YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT ANY SLANG TERM COINED AFTER 1993 MEANS! Paired with your desire to criticize people for using words that are too old (my use — in a COMMENT, mind you — of the obsolete but more charming definition of “portend”) it makes you completely insufferable. Actually, looking at it this way, you’ve probably libeled me, at least according to the definition your little troll friend Tyler uses. Then again, neither of you have ever made much of a point to learn what words mean before acting nutty about them. Like the time you failed to understand how I meant straw man as “an opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.” Ugh. Like I said, insufferable. Honestly, Bill, when you do stuff like this is makes me question how you could ever make a living off the written word. It’s not that you’re an idiot, Bill, it’s just that you don’t read enough. At least not enough stuff outside the narrow world of your obsessions. So, yeah, I’m sorry for using syntax you’re only kinda-sorta familiar with in my work, as it tends to offer you irresistible opportunities to look like a jackass.
10:21 AM
Young Martin Cizmar™, the Beach Boys, and "reverse homerism"
Dear Martin:
In your much-anticipated inquiry into Beach Boys Party!, there was a part I got hung up on.
It’s the emphasized phrase below.
Pet Sounds […] has been called the best rock record ever made by most of the top British music mags — NME, The Times and Mojo among them. America’s top source for all things ‘60s, Rolling Stone, in a perhaps non-coincidental case of reverse homerism, put it at number two, behind Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.
Let’s try to parse it out!
“Homerism,” as I understand the term, is derived from the more common word “homer,” a slang term for someone who would give brownie points to something for being local.
In this case, I think you are referring to the U.K. vs. the U.S.
If the editors of Rolling Stone were being “homerist,” they would vote for Pet Sounds over Sgt. Pepper. In this case, they didn’t, so they weren’t being “homerist”; they were being, in Cizmarianistic terms, “reverse homerist.”
By the same token, one might call you a “reverse prose stylist.”
However, this was not merely generic “reverse homerism'; it was a "perhaps non-coincidental” incidence of it.
Again, let’s take a step back. First, “coincidental.” Coincidental with what?
This is a truly cosmic question, second only to whether The Times is a “British music mag.”
I believe you are referring to the U.K. papers' having similarly reverse homeristically lauded the American Pet Sounds over the indisputably British Sgt. Pepper; in this context, Rolling Stone is unquestionably (and amusingly) coincidentally (and parallelledly) being precisely as reversely homeristic.
Yet you do not take this at face value. You delve deeper.
Could the Rolling Stone plaudits of Sgt. Pepper over Pet Sounds “perhaps” be “non-coincidental”?
I believe you are raising the question of its being … deliberate. Intentional. Planned, even.
Aha! I can hear the editors of Rolling Stone thinking. Those British papers wanna play coy, hmm? If they put Beach Boys number one, why, we’re gonna put the Beatles number one!
Young Martin’s point is finally plain.
Dark international deeds were afoot in the Rolling Stone offices, and Brian Wilson may have been cheated out of a transatlantic sweep had not this “non-coincidental reverse homerism” stolen away his rightful place at number one.
Perhaps, anyway.
Previously in PHXated!:
April 22: Confidential to Young Martin Cizmar™
April 15: Cizmar-apalooza!
April 14: Young Martin Cizmar™ update!
April 9: Should KJZZ play indie rock?
April 2: Martin Cizmar: ‘Dost thou portend to know what was notable?’
April 1: McCartney Mania! New Times' Martin Cizmar responds!
March 31: The curious Martin Cizmar
12:48 PM
Arizona Press Club awards—Young Martin Cizmar™ is a winner!
They say that a young journalist with a dream in his heart and a shaky conception of the meaning of words and phrases like “portend,” “rhetorical” and “straw man” can’t get a break in this older man’s and woman’s game.
But Young Martin Cizmar™, the Phoenix New Times music editor, who writes with authority, if not knowledge, about 80s synth pop and press releases, among other things, is a multiple winner in the latest Arizona Press Club awards.
He came in second place in the opinion blog category for his contributions to Up on the Sun, the New Times' music blog.
“A voice this clear and bold is unusual in modern criticism,” the judge said. “While some may disagree with the opinions, the writing is hard to put down.”
Our Martin was also cited, somewhat redundantly, as a contributor to Up on the Sun, the New Times' music blog, in the Best Feature Blog category, in first place …
… and, even more redundantly, in third place as well, as, um, a contributor to the Up on the Sun, the New Times' music blog.
But Young Martin also scored in the best music arts writing category. One of the pieces cited was “An ode to 1994: Green Day’s Dookie and the Peak of Western Civilization”, whose thesis is that the albums Martin liked in seventh grade are the best. albums. ever.
Congrats, Marty!
Complete list of Press Club winners is here.
A postscript to Young Martin’s essay on 1994: Now, any critic is entitled to his or her opinion, and Young Martin’s seventh-grade perspective is of course valuable, as are those of anyone the first year they try marijuana.
But most critics would say 1994 represented a lull in pop music after the exciting early years of that decade.
Public Enemy and Dr. Dre had released their signal albums. So had MBV and Pavement. Lolla had lost its luster. Warhorses like U2 and R.E.M. had already revivified themselves with Achtung Baby and Automatic for the People. Girl rock had peaked with Liz Phair and PJ Harvey and the Breeders. And I’m forgetting something …
… oh yeah, and Nevermind had come out three years prior, turning the music industry upside-down in the process.
Other than that, 1994 was an important year.
p.s.: I got one of Young Martin’s award categories wrong above: it was for best arts writing, not music writing.
1:44 AM
The Arizona Republic: Reviewing operas, four days later
Richard Nilsen, the paper’s fine fine-arts critic, had a review of The Barber of Seville on the front page of the Living section today.
It was a rave:
[A]s Arizona Opera’s “Barber” began, the audience was prepared to hear a perfectly adequate performance. We awaited our favorite arias and, for about five minutes or so, everything went pro forma.
Then Figaro entered the scene, with his “Largo et factotum,” and it was as if someone plugged it into 220 volts. From that moment on, this became one of the best “Barbers” ever.
But the review said he’d seen the opera Friday. The show ran Saturday and Sunday as well; PHXated saw it Sunday afternoon and there were empty seats. Wouldn’t it be better to get the thing into the paper earlier?
It took some digging, but we found Nilson’s Nilsen’s review posted online Saturday afternoon. (In weird but typically Republic fashion, it was reposted with the rest of the paper at midnight last night as well.)
The problem, we suspect, is that the paper’s Saturday deadlines are too early to accomodate a review of a Friday night performance.
What about Sunday? Well, you may find this hard to believe, but it may be true that the Republic, like many papers, has Sunday deadlines too early for a Friday evening review.
(None of these decisions, you will note, are done for the benefit of readers. They are done to make the printing schedule more convenient for the paper, and by “the printing schedule more convenient” I mean “the whole process cheaper.”)
Anyway, so why didn’t it get printed Monday?
Well the answer to that question is tougher. The section had a very important wire story from the Washington Post to run. It was about how some churches have to “meld cultures” (i.e., with, say, English and Spanish speakers).
Obviously pressing news.
It also had another very important wire story about how American Idol’s ratings are falling. (That was one was from the Post as well.)
Oh yeah, and yet one more wire story, this one from USA Today, about the lessons of the swine flu—which, you will remember, wasn’t really called swine flu, but rather the H1N1 virus, but whatever.
The paper also on Monday had to make room on the front page of its living section for a blurb about saving “40 percent at Basha’s on Shamrock Farms products,” and no, that wasn’t an advertisement, though it sure reads like one.
But wait—why couldn’t the paper run Nilsen’s review inside the section on Monday?
Well, because it had to run a story about fancy doghouses.
This carried the hedline “Posh pads for pampered pooches.”
Presumably because the alternative, “Delightful digs for discriminating doggies,” didn’t fit.
(By the way, you can see here that the “pampered pooches” phrase is an alliterative well the paper has come back to at least five times this year alone.
(Note that this story joins the paper’s recent investigative reports about dogs on Twitter and dogs on Facebook.)
The pampered pooches story was a wire story as well, of course.
Anyway, the moral to this story is the moral to all the others. Newspapers are dying because they don’t care about readers, and they don’t care about their community. If they did, they would lift a finger to get a rave review of one of the city’s premiere arts organizations by one of the paper’s more serious writers into the paper sooner than four days later.
12:54 PM
Cizmar-a-palooza!
Young Martin Cizmar, Easily Amazed Journalist™; a detractor; and a defender comment on PHXated’s recent exegesis of a Cizmar blog post.
PHXated prefers comments that disagree with him, but for variety’s sake will start things off with Young Martin’s detractor:
Tyler Hurst said on Wednesday, April 14, 2010:
He’s a criticizer, not a critic. He’s sole job is to piss people off and get the community riled up.
I suppose being really bad at what you do is one way to get attention.
Also, why do so many journalists treat blogs as shitty first-person accounts? Can’t the words and phrases they string together in a blog format be clear, concise and interesting? That’s what bloggers do!
PHXated responds: This is a good point. PHXated’s tendency is to refer to himself in the third person, using the blog title, which seems somehow to be not as solipsistic as the straightforward use of “I” and yet also serves to irritate people already predisposed not to be fans, so I can’t claim innocence on this count. That said, there is something searchingly banal about constructions like “As a press release I got today pointed out….”
Dan Gibson said on Wednesday, April 14, 2010:
Bill, ignoring for a moment the quoting of press releases, why wouldn’t George Strait be worthy of a blog post?
Admittedly, I wrote a feature about Strait for the New Times so my perspective is already on record, but there is something interesting about a career with the longevity and accompanying success he has achieved. After all, there are few country, pop or rock acts who have topped the charts in both the early 80’s and in recent years. Obviously there’s going to be some distinction between popularity and chart success, but dismissing artists offhand based on the fact that they actually have fans or radio spins (“Quality is what matters, not chart performance”) seems just as lazy critically.
PHXated responds: Dan, thanks for writing in. I didn’t say Strait wasn’t worthy of a blog post. He is worthy of a blog post and a feature article like yours. The point was that there was nothing in the blog post to warrant its being a blog post.
If you will recall the redoubtable piece of journalism that that blog post was, it told us that Young Martin Cizmar™ did a radio show on Strait, and that he did it in the face of those who might have found fault with it.
How brave he seemed!
Then we got the regurgitated press release, the news value of which I covered in my original post, and then we were left with the comforting realization that Young Martin Cizmar™ was on a first-name basis with the singer. (“Congrats, George.”)
So George Strait is worthy of a blog post in the same way anything is worthy of a blog post, when the writer of the blog post has something interesting to say about it.
Now, being a blogger himself, PHXated (and Hitsville!) knows that not every post is tip-top. But we expect better things from Young Martin than, you know, regurgitated press releases.
I don’t understand what you mean about the “distinction between popularity and chart success.”
As to your final point, I think that Strait is an unmemorable artist but an efficient and implacable country music star. As I noted originally, the undemanding country audience is actually quite loyal to artists like him; empty hats with thirty-year careers aren’t that unusual. (Serious people have them as well; Hank Jr. had a massive run, for example, and remained frequently surprising.) I didn’t say anything about your article. I’m in favor of serious features on artists of every sort. I’m not in favor of regurgitated press releases.
Speaking of which, why are we “ignoring the quoting of press releases?” Isn’t that what my item was about?
Martin Cizmar said on Wednesday, April 14, 2010:
Bill,
I talked extensively about Strait during my hour-long guest DJ slot, where I played a lot of his best songs. Also, Dan Gibson wrote a piece for us putting Strait’s greatness in perspective. Also, my concert review discusses a lot of your rhetorical questions. It’s not like this is the first and only thing I’ve ever written about him, and the questions you ask aren’t answered elsewhere.Cizmar’s comment continues below….
PHXated responds: Dear Martin:
Thank you for that edifying account of your recent activities. The next time you write in, feel free to address the point of my post, which was that you were recycling meaningless commercial benchmarks from a record-company press release, and getting a little choked up about it besides. (“Congrats, George!”)
p.s. I did not portend to ask any “rhetorical questions.”
p.p.s.: I want to commend you on your recent tweet: “Off-Brand Fudgsicles: Always a Mistake.”
… Cizmar’s comment concludes:
Tyler,
Still haven’t heard from your lawyer! I did, however, hear from two lawyers who were quite amused by your post and our back and forth… they suggested I should actually sue you, since calling a journalist “a defaming liar” is actually defamation, in their book. Pretty funny stuff. Don’t worry, though, I’m not a little bitch.
PHXated responds: Readers who find this all opaque should know that Young Martin Cizmar™ is referring to a recent blog post by Mr. Tyler Hurst, of whom PHXated is a fan, raising some somewhat heated questions about libel after Young Martin said Mr. Hurst, a freelance marketing consultant, “con[ned] idiotic businesses into paying […] to teach them basic stuff.”
Mr. Hurst then said Young Martin was a “defaming liar,” and barristers have apparently been consulted. PHXated will keep readers apprised of any ensuing legal developments, or duels.
Previously in PHXated!:
April 14: Young Martin Cizmar™ update!
April 9: Should KJZZ play indie rock?
April 2: Martin Cizmar: ‘Dost thou portend to know what was notable?’
April 1: McCartney Mania! New Times’ Martin Cizmar responds!
March 31: The curious Martin Cizmar …
9:33 AM
Young Martin Cizmar update!
Regular readers have followed with perhaps varying degrees of interest PHXated’s back and forth with Young Martin Cizmar, Attitudinal Journalist™, the music editor of the Phoenix New Times.
Here’s Young Martin’s latest bit of music criticism.
It’s a blog post about, for some reason, George Strait:
As a press release I got today pointed out, Strait has accomplished what no other artist in the history of Billboard charts has — 30 years of consecutive Top 10 hits.
Cizmar, a youngster, doesn’t have the perspective on the music industry that would help him deal with the informational gold contained in press releases.
I’m here to help!
1) He could throw the press release away. Who cares what record companies say? A critic’s job is to say something interesting about art, not repeat PR talking points.
2) Press releases contain information with a negative value—i.e., information that people pay to have disseminated. (As opposed to pay to learn.) Repeating it just helps the PR departments going.
3) Press releases contain untrue and half-true information. For example, Cizmar’s account of Strait’s supposed record omits the word “country” before “Billboard charts.” The country charts are not the pop charts. The country audience is notoriously artist-friendly. Basically, once you’re a star, as long as you show up for fan day and suck up to the key radio programmers you’ll have hits until the day you die.
4) Any number of country artists have had hits for decade after decade after decade. I’ll stipulate that Strait perhaps might claim the consecutive string of “top ten” hits, but even that’s not all that impressive given how common hit-making longevity is in that world.
5) Why does popularity matter in any case? Quality is what matters, not chart performance.
6) I love the euphony of the phrase “As a press release I got today pointed out….” It’s poetry, sheer poetry.
7) Did i mention how pathetic it is to quote press releases?
8:49 AM
Should KJZZ play indie rock?
The New Times’ Martin Cizmar and Steve Chilton, a local music promoter, debate the issue on a podcast.
I personally can’t imagine taking the time to listen to it, but Cizmar’s distillation of their discussion he puts thusly:
Martin: Give me indie rock or just shut that shitty station down.
Steve: “I would love to see an indie rock station here. I would like that. I just don’t want to see it come at the expense of jazz.”
I don’t understand this debate on two levels. One, KJZZ is a public-radio station, dependent on listener donations to survive.
Unlike a lot of public-radio stations, it has recently been hiring more actual reporters, and ramping up its news coverage in a way that’s going to make a big difference in the quality of the news its audience gets.
Calling it “shitty” seems not entirely accurate.
And in any case, the directors and programmers need to think about the station’s future, particularly in this difficult media climate. Playing “indie” music” seems not likely to be attractive to the sort of audience that will shell out money for the station.
Still, financial issues aside, the question might be, can KJZZ serve the community better? Is there’s a niche there? Is the indie scene underserved?
Seems to me there’s more outlets for indie music than there ever has been in, like, the history of the world.
Everything’s online … there’s a million online radio stations and then Pandora; friends can pass you thumb drives or discs with hundreds of songs on them. MP3 blogs have just about any tune you can think of for free. You can stick it all on your iPod and listen to it in the car, outside, at home, wherever you want.
And the indie-rock audience, of course, is more conversant with these technologies than the jazz audience, which skews a lot older.
Who cares if a dying medium doesn’t play indie rock? And why be so derisive of about the last local quality outlet of that medium?
12:44 PM
Martin Cizmar: "Dost thou portend to know what was notable?"
PHXated and the New Times’ Martin Cizmar have been billet-douxing back and forth about the latter’s review of a recent Paul McCartney show.
Much of this discussion has involved a nagging fixation on Cizmar’s part on a song called “Ob-La-Di Ob-la-da,” which is a tune from a long time ago originally done by Wings, or the Hollies, or something.
Anyway, the note below was originally placed here as a comment, but it deserves a higher profile. I had my say; It’s only fair that Cizmar have the last word
Even if that word is “portend” and he’s not 100 percent clear on its meaning.
My original post here. Our back and forth here.
--
Martin Cizmar said on Thursday, April 01, 2010:
Bill,
I think you might be confused about what was going on here… Wrestlemania and Paul McCartney were on the same day in the same complex. Jobing.com held it’s lots back and gave free parking to fans, as it always does. This is about the other lots, the ones owned by U of P, Glendale, Westgate and the tax payers (ahem). I wasn’t parking as a McCartney goer, I was parking as a wrestling goer. So all your bullshit about the hummers, etc. isn’t on point.
As for what the government could do to make things easier. Well, governments can do a lot of things to make things “easier,” to avoid ugly signs, to delegate police powers to non-sworn officers. Unfortunately for people like you, people like me keep pointing to this crusty old constitution which makes such things illegal. Sorry, dude, but even Joe Arpaio can’t just do whatever he wants for convenience state, though ignorant voters like you do their best to try and give him such powers.
I’m not sure if you are accusing me of literally pulling something from a press release, but I didn’t read any press releases on the tour. McCartney made that point from stage and it struck me. It still strikes me. That’s a song I, and a lot of other people, have been intimately in touch with for years and years. It’s a classic probably above anything in, say, U2’s catalog. As I stated, this wasn’t a “Monkberrien obscurity” it was Ob-La-Fucking-Da! Comparing that to the some B’side from the WAR album is either shamefully ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
Now, about your fuzzy math: The Beatles wrote, by my count, a total of 191 songs. 108 of those came out after Shea. So, no, he couldn’t have played 20 or 30 of those for the first time on every tour. Beyond that, I’m not talking about fucking “Sea of Holes” here, I’m talking about a very, very well known song!
And it had never been played live in the U.S. before. The reason, of course, is the fact that the Beatles stopped playing outside the studio after Shea Stadium, but it’s still telling to me. The fact that other people do a shoddy job of imitating that angle (this particular pair of pants, etc.) just reinforces for me how special McCartney is. What a class above he is.
I’ve seen McCartney twice in less than a year. You’ve seen him, what, a decade ago? Yet you portend to know what was notable?
11:06 AM