Home » Editorial

Category: Editorial

Posts that deal with subjective content, expressing opinions or providing reviews of other media.

Fender Is At It Again

Apparently, Fender has sent a cease & desist (C&D) to Cool Old Guitars (COG) in Australia. They are making extraordinarily broad claims about COG misusing Fender’s trademarks. The problem? From what I can see, COG is doing nothing wrong.

A Disclaimer

I am not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet. What I write here does not constitute legal advice, nor is it a legal opinion. I am, at best, an experienced amateur.

The Claims

Fender is claiming a couple of things. First, they are saying that COG is using Fender trademarks, even though COG has no formal relationship with Fender, and is not a Fender distributor. Fender says that this is not allowed.

Second, they are saying that COG is misusing the Fender trademark and causing customer confusion with COG’s search function. The claim is that a search for “Fender Stratocaster” turns up a number of S-type guitars that are not from Fender.

The Problems

The first claim (that COG has no relationship with Fender to allow them to use Fender’s trademarks) is pure rubbish. COG does not have to have a formal relationship with Fender to use those words, because their use is about search. Moreover, COG only deals in used product, and Fender cannot legally put any limitations on what happens to their product after it is sold. The only exception is to enjoin the initial buyer as part of the original sale contract. But that contract does not apply to anyone that the original purchaser sells the product to. It’s known as first sale doctrine: the manufacturer only has control the first time their product is sold. After that, they no longer get to impose any terms on subsequent buyers or sellers.

The key comes back to “search”, which also goes to the second claim. COG is allowing people to use the formal and informal use of words to find items on their store. Trademark law does not apply in this case. If it did, no search engine could ever be in operation. In the same way that I can ask another person in a music store “do you have any Strats or something like them?”, an individual can type that same question into a search bar. COG is allowed to provide results, including links to Strat-like guitars, because these searches are not “commercial use” in the sense it applies in other situations. These are words used by people to describe something. Fender cannot put limitations on that.

The only way Fender might be able to make this argument stick is if they can show they have sent a C&D to every company operating any kind of a search engine. Moreover, Fender’s parent company owns Reverb, a used music gear site. It, too, would have to do the same filtering. Unless, of course, someone took the time to craft a licence agreement between the two companies. Having the same owners isn’t sufficient. Basically, Fender has to show they have made significant efforts to protect their trademark. If they look even slightly lax, they could lose it entirely.

Public Inconsistency

Fender’s new CEO has claimed that people calling guitars “S-type” is “whitewashing the issue”. In a presentation to distributors and retailers, he said that they should be calling these copies “Stratocasters”. But their C&D says to stop calling them Stratocasters or they’ll sue. Which is it?

The CEO can’t say “well, my remarks are just my personal opinion”. No, sir, they are not. Not in that context. You were not speaking as “Bud Cole, individual”. You were speaking as Edward Cole, Chief Executive Officer of Fender Musical Instruments Corporation. Those remarks were you speaking on behalf of the corporation, not on behalf of yourself. Your statements represent the official opinion and position of the company.

The company cannot have it both ways. Those statements could be (loosely) interpreted to mean that Fender is admitting they actually don’t have the trademark anymore. So suing people over a trademark that you publicly walked away from would be illegal. Fender and their CEO need to pick a lane, and stay in it.

Too Little, Too Late

COG, or any other retailer receiving a similar C&D, can argue that Fender waited to long to hope to enforce these terms. Why? Because Fender’s last meaningful attempt to protect trademarks was back in the early 1970’s. And it does not appear they’ve done anything since. Defendants could push to have the trademarks revoked because Fender didn’t do enough to protect them. That would mean they now fall into the public domain. Just ask Bayer how that works, since they lost protection for the word “Aspirin” decades ago for not defending it. And yes, Aspirin is the generic name. The formal name is acetylsalicylic acid or ASA.

This is the reason why Disney has, for decades, been ruthless in going after anyone for using Disney trademarks. It may seem mean, or greedy, but the reality is simple: protect it or lose it. Anyone who holds trademarks that have value know that if they get lax, then it’s over.

To Summarize the Defence

A defence would have, as I see it, the following main arguments:

  1. Fender waited too long to defend these trademarks, and as such, should not be entitled to protection.
  2. Use of trademarks for the purposes of search would fall within fair use. They are not being used for purely commercial purposes.
  3. The new test, of a “moron in a hurry” would clearly demonstrate that a reasonable person would find no confusion in terms of how these relate to Fender. Further, it does not demonstrate, or even imply, that Fender is involved with or endorsing any aspect of the business. The names in this case are simply technical terms that apply to the items in question.

You Can’t Litigate Marketshare

Fender seems to be doing this in a vain attempt to shore up sales. All they are doing is driving customers into the arms of their competitors. Even if all of the recipients of these letters complied, the damage is already done. Fender will have potentially buried their brands, and done all the others a huge favour. Certainly, the names Stratocaster and others won’t disappear overnight. But they may, over time, be relegated to the dustbin of history. Think that can’t happen? Well, no one calls making a photocopy “xeroxing” anymore, unless you’re old enough. I grew up with the term, and I haven’t used it in decades.

The issue, based on what I’ve seen in the music world as an enthusiast, is that Fender has damaged its own brand through its own actions. The quality of their instruments (real and perceived) has declined, and as a result, made room in the market for superior product. And it isn’t just the quality. It is the price. Fender has continued to increase prices without making any material improvement in terms of quality.

There’s Also a Risk

If it turns out that Fender’s trademark is revoked because they didn’t do enough to protect it, and these actions are too late, now Fender has a problem: antitrust. If Fender is trying to use their dominant position in the market to harm competitors, that could open them up to governments or courts ordering them to pay fines, and to possibly be divested from their current parent. Anticompetitive actions that harm competitors, stifle innovation, and increase consumer costs, are highly frowned upon in many nations around the world.

It doesn’t appear that Fender or its management care about this. They seem to be determined to not just set fire to their brand equity, they want to completely vaporize it. Nothing they are doing is going to help their business financially. This is all money spent to reduce how much they can sell. There are few Youtubers I follow that have made it clear that they won’t buy another new Fender product. None have said they will dispose of what they have. But they won’t be buying any new stuff. Many won’t be reviewing new Fender product. The consensus appears to be to basically render Fender invisible on their channels.

Can Fender Fix This?

I don’t believe that Fender has passed the point of no return, but they are fast approaching it. There are some immediate steps to take, and they will be extraordinarily painful.

Step one is to walk their new CEO to the door. He’s the public face of this PR disaster, and he will have to wear it. Fender cannot hope to fix this by keeping the person who appears to have started this mess around. Any apologies he might make (if he felt so inclined) will be to help him get his next job. His time at Fender is done.

Step two is to withdraw all of the C&D’s they’ve sent. Admit that they misinterpreted what the ruling in Germany actually meant from a legal standpoint (and perhaps publicly fire some of the lawyers involved).

Step three (this is the painful one): put the Stratocaster, Telecaster, and other names formally in the public domain. Make it clear that the company is going to compete on quality, features, and price. The names have already gone past any control Fender might have had. This is Fender giving back as part of the mea culpa.

Step four is to build better instruments. Pay attention to quality. Bring prices back into some semblance of normal. They don’t have to match the copies. But the prices are too high relative to the products being sold. Making them better will allow a premium price to remain. But it can’t be an outrageous price.

Short-term Pain for Long-term Gain

These steps are going to cost money. They are going to hurt Fender. But it will be a short-term hit. People won’t necessarily forget what happened, but they will also remember a meaningful apology and an actual turnaround in improved product.

Continuing down their current path has the very real risk of damaging Fender permanently. The value of the brand is plummeting, and will continue to do so. The private equity owners will discover that they now own something of greatly diminished value. Do they really want to own a brand that becomes another Altec Lansing? Aiwa? Kenwood? A brand that used to be one of the top names now applied to cheap, disposable product? That could very well be the fate of Fender if they keep this up.

How To Destroy A Brand

Fender appointed a new CEO recently, and that CEO has decided to unleash the lawyers. The company has sent cease and desist letters to a number of guitar manufacturers that are either in the EU, or sell product in the EU, that make S-style, or Stratocaster-style, guitars. It was done on what may be very sketchy legal ground. Others have covered the saga in more detail. I’m here to talk about some of the legal issues. And I’ve seen people talking about things that are, as I understand them, actually wrong.

A Disclaimer

I am not a lawyer, I just play one on the Internet. I am not an expert on contract and intellectual property law in a common law setting. I am, however, an informed amateur, having been involved in drafting and reviewing contracts, trademark applications, and patent applications. This does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions, consult a real lawyer, because that isn’t me.

A Shaky Foundation

Fender acted shortly after receiving a default judgement in a German court. The lawsuit involved Fender claiming they had a copyright on the Stratocaster body design. This was their basis for suing a company in China for violating that supposed copyright. The defendant, however, never showed up or provided a statement of defence. As such, the court had no real choice but to grant default judgement. This is normal in a civil suit: if the defendant doesn’t show up, then the court awards the plaintiff judgement.

However, to use this to claim that they now have a copyright on the Stratocaster body shape is a pretty big stretch. Why? Because the judge didn’t rule on the merits of Fender’s case. The court followed procedure. A default judgement is generally not considered a “win” in the sense that the party that showed up was right. They “win” because they were in the courtroom and the other party wasn’t.

No Actual Review of the Merits

There was no opportunity for discovery. No evidence was presented for examination. There were no witnesses called to be questioned and cross-examined. There was no expert testimony. The judge did not hear any citations of prior law or rulings. Neither party presented any sort of case to back up their claim.

Again, the default judgement was entirely procedural. It cannot be considered a statement or position on the merits of Fender’s claim. Thomann, a German retailer and owner of the Harley Benton brand, is taking Fender to court after having received one of these cease and desist letters.

Their goal is to force Fender to defend their claims, and present evidence. It will result in a discovery process, where information will have to be disclosed. There will be evidence, witnesses (expert or otherwise), and an opportunity for them to be examined. It does not appear that Thomann is interested in settling this case.

This is Civil Law

Any before anyone tries to claim that the ruling is wrong because the defendant should be considered “innocent until proven guilty”, I have some bad news. This is a civil case. The rules are different.

Both parties are required to present their case and argue why they should prevail. As such, the defendant must provide an affirmative defence. The burden isn’t just on the plaintiff. It falls on the defendant too.

It also isn’t about guilt or innocence. No one is “at jeopardy” here, with fines, jail time, and a criminal record all potentially resulting. There isn’t a “conviction”. The judge finds in favour of one party or the other. If only one of the two parties shows up, they win. Otherwise, the judge (or jury) uses a standard called “preponderance of evidence”. Which side presented more compelling evidence to support their case. It is not about “reasonable doubt”.

Some Misinformation

I have heard at least one person on Youtube claim that the German court’s ruling does not have effect outside of Germany. For some types of intellectual property claims, this would be true. Patents, for example, are only enforceable within the borders of the country that issued them. Copyright and trademark, however, are a different story. They do, in fact, apply internationally.

Germany, the United States, and about 180 other countries have signed something called The Berne Convention (the full name is The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works). This convention was first drafted in 1886, and went into effect in 1887. It has been updated from time to time, and still carries legal effect. The gist of the convention is that all signatory nations will recognize copyrights from the other signatory nations. It allows people from one participating country to sue someone from another signatory country for infringement of copyright or trademark.

This means that Fender, an American company, can hypothetically sue a Swedish company for violating their copyright. Fender could use a proper precedent-setting judgement from a German court to bolster their case. This would affirm that Fender holds a copyright in Germany, and therefore essentially has it in all the other nations that have signed the convention.

Some US Protection, But Not Comprehensive

Fender has tried to protect the Stratocaster design, with limited success.  Fender did receive a design patent (US Design Patent Number 164,227) which was granted on August 14, 1951. Obviously, that patent has long since expired. As a US patent, it only had protection in the US. Any international patents would also have expired, if they existed.

The company was denied a trademark for the Stratocaster design in 2009. The reasoning was that the design had become generic. This is supported, to some degree, by two things. First is the long timeframe between when the design patent expired (which would have expired in 1971) and when the trademark application was submitted. During that time, the design would have fallen into the public domain, absent Fender making reasonable efforts to protect it. If you don’t make an effort to defend a trademark, you lose it.

With the patent expired, and the trademark denied, that would only leave copyright as the sole way to potentially protect the design. However, legal events would conspire against that method as well.

Not helping Fender is a 2017 US Supreme Court ruling against copyright applying to some “useful articles”. The case was decided March 22, 2017 (Star Athletica L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.). Both companies make, among other items, cheerleading uniforms. They have hundreds of copyrights on design elements of the uniforms (colours, stripes, chevrons, etc.) . Star apparently began making uniforms that Varsity believed were similar to their own. Varsity sued Star for copyright infringement.

Ultimately Varsity won, but in their ruling the Supreme Court outlined the two tests that were required for copyright to apply to a “useful article”. The first test was “separability”: can the design be separated from the article and still be perceived? If it can, is the design, absent the article, something that is entitled to copyright protection? In the case of the uniforms, the design was separable and could stand on its own without the clothing.

Not Protectable or Protected

This ruling, though, could be seen as invalidating any kind of claim to copyright by Fender. The shape of the Stratocaster body is the entire design. There is no separate, identifiable design without the physical body.

While this is a US Supreme Court ruling, it could be argued that the Berne Convention isn’t just about recognizing copyrights across all participating nations. It could also be argued that not being eligible for copyright would also apply, absent some significantly different law in another country. Essentially both the protection and it’s inverse, no protection, would both apply.

The result would seem to be simple and straightforward: once the design patent issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office expired, the design passed into the public domain. Patents grant creators a temporary monopoly on their idea or design. Once that monopoly period expires, it can never be patented again. The inability to receive a trademark, and being ineligible for copyright further supports the assertion the design is in the public domain. Thus, if the design is public domain in the US, it should by extension be in the public domain everywhere else. This was never tested in the German court in its default judgement.

Setting The Brand on Fire

Considering that the new CEO, Edward “Bud” Cole, has spent his career expanding the presence and reach of brands such as LVMH, Pernod Ricard, and Fender, this is a massive self-own. Fender is one of two legacy brands that have been under some fire for product quality and inflated prices, so this does not strengthen the brand, it weakens it. As legendary guitars like the Telecaster, Stratocaster, Jazzmaster, and Mustang get further and further out of reach financially, others are filling that gap. Fender doesn’t like it, but here’s a reality check: Fender doesn’t make instruments that compete in some of those price points. Moreover, players aren’t just looking for instruments at a good price, they want instruments that are also well-built. The quality on some of Fender’s most expensive guitars has been rather hit-or-miss.

What isn’t helping are comments from Cole regarding this fiasco. He has, in some cases, misrepresented what Fender is doing. For example, at a dealer’s meeting, he claimed that Fender is trying to reach out to the Strat clone makers, and work with them. He also claimed that Fender has not asked anyone to recall instruments or destroy stock they already have. These are in direct contradiction to the wording of the letters sent. The letter explicitly demands companies recall instruments and destroy them along with unsold stock. The letter makes no effort to indicate Fender wants to work with them. At this point, Fender’s CEO is nearing rock bottom, and breaking out the dynamite to start blasting.

Can They Fix It?

That is a good question, and one without any clear answers. Some have called for Bud Cole to resign over this, and it may come to that. It depends on how the company’s board feels about all this.

Fender could try to withdraw all the cease and desist letters. This would kneecap the Thomann suit. But it avoid the likely loss for Fender’s claimed copyright. Fender has erased a lot of goodwill that has been built since 1946. Players have been complaining more frequently about product quality and price. Acting like an asshat just makes things worse.

This won’t destroy Fender. But it will cause some financial harm in the short term. Contrition and a “sacrifice” (pushing out the new CEO) could help at least stop the bleeding. It would take the spotlight off the company. But they have a lot of work ahead of them to rebuild their brand and reputation.

 

The Promise and Peril of Self-publishing (referral)

Self-publishing offers content creators a means to bypass traditional gatekeepers; however, the reality involves significant challenges. Authors must navigate immense competition, promote their work across multiple platforms, and contend with AI-generated content flooding the market. While the landscape is daunting, strategic marketing efforts can enhance visibility and success.

Read more

Did Disco Foreshadow Mainstream 80’s Music?

I watched a recent episode of Professor of Rock about Rick Astley and his biggest hit, Never Going To Give You Up. One commenter on that episode said that, to them, this song is a disco song. And that got me thinking: did disco foreshadow mainstream pop and New Wave of the 1980’s? Did disco actually die, or did it simply evolve like other music genres? It’s an idea worth exploring.

The Rise of Disco

Disco evolved from mainstream pop music in the 1970’s. The songs generally featured an increased use of horns and strings, as well as synths. The objective for most songs was for them to be danceable. In some cases, songs came with a new dance. The Hustle by Van McCoy was one popular example of it. Disco essentially went mainstream when the movie Saturday Night Fever came out in 1977, and with it one of the best selling soundtracks and albums of all time. It put disco firmly in the middle of western culture.

There was, of course, a host of other music genre followers that hated, even reviled, disco. I have to admit at the time that I was one, although to a limited degree. The music was catchy, it was usually upbeat and uptempo, and it wasn’t filled with “messages” or “lessons”. The songs were about dancing, partying, and just generally having fun. But the use of orchestral instruments and synths, coupled with a degree of over-production, put off listeners of rock and country. It spawned fashion styles that some derided, even viciously mocked.

Disco Replaced by 1980’s Pop, Rock, and New Wave

As the 1970’s rolled into its final years, bands began to release albums mocking disco. ELO’s 1979 album Discovery was meant as a bit of a response (with the name including “disco”), as one example. By this time, disco was now mainstream, and was getting a bit “worn” and “tired” for some listeners.

While some claim that Rick Dee’s 1976 novelty song, Disco Duck, was when disco jumped the shark, the music form would continue for years beyond it. There were disco, and disco-like, songs released right up until 1982. Many of the core aesthetics of disco would carry on into 1980’s New Wave and pop, using similar production philosophies, and featuring synths and, at times, orchestral instruments.

All Music Is An Evolutionary Form

All music styles are an evolution of some older style. At it’s core, all modern music calls the blues as it’s core foundation. Blues gave rise to jazz and folk music. Those were remixed back with the blues, and each other, to spawn Big Band, country (first called race music, then hillbilly music, followed by country & western), pop, and rock ‘n roll (later just rock). While new genres can have a distinct sound and feel, ultimately, you find a lot with the basic 12-bar blues structure somewhere at its core.

In the same way that gospel and folk (evolutionary descendants of blues) foreshadowed country, disco could be seen as the natural ancestor of mainstream 1980’s music. Again, they share some similar sounds and a similar feel. The difference can be more use of political or social messages, or exploring deeper topics around breakup, loss, or failure. Not all New Wave songs were uptempo, cheerful dance numbers.

Even 80’s Music Would Decline

In the same way that disco gave way to mainstream 80’s music, other forms would supplant the 80’s. The new forms didn’t, of course, conveniently start in 1990. By 1988 and 1989, you could already see a shift. Rap was becoming more prominent. The early sounds that would become garage rock and grunge could be heard. The music of the late 1980’s was different from the early and mid-1980’s. You could feel a shift in 1987 and 1988. The same happened in the late 1970’s, where some songs that sound quintessentially 80’s came out in 1978 and 1979. Genesis’s “Follow You Follow Me” (1978) and “Misunderstanding” (1979), as well as some of Pat Benetar’s first hits are from the period.

So, was disco foreshadowing mainstream music of the 1980’s? Did a form sometimes thought of as a niche (you’d never know it listening to the radio in the late 1970’s) presage what was coming? Based on a cursory look, that would seem to be the case. Performers and songwriters may have been influenced, even if only indirectly, by the sound that was prevalent on the airwaves, in movies and television, and in school dances. The fingerprints of disco can be seen all over many, many hits of the 1980’s.

 

Why I Left Spotify

I have decided to leave Spotify after trying it for the last 8 months or so. Why? It wasn’t because of total dissatisfaction. Instead, a handful of irritants began to wear on me while using it.

What It Does Right

Before going into what I don’t like about Spotify, I do want to do go over two things that it does well. The first is volume levelling. This is something that is a bit annoying with Apple Music and their various apps (and no, “sound check” doesn’t work all that well). Spotify does a commendable job of ensuring that all songs in a playlist have similar volume levels.

I’ve only ever used it for playlists, so I can’t comment on how it might work or not work with an album. I know Apple’s “sound check” will mess up some albums, so I largely leave it off as a result. I’m still very much an album listener, not just a playlist shuffler.

The other thing I rather like is cross-device shuffle synchronization (at least when it works). It is nice that I can stop music on my desktop or an iPad, fire it up on my phone in the car, and take up where I left off. Mostly. The phone app doesn’t always get updated unless you remember to open it while still connected to wifi and before you get in the car.

The First Irritation: Bad Playlist Shuffling

My first, and probably biggest, complaint is with how it builds the playback order for shuffling. Frankly, it does an abysmal job of digging into the entire playlist. Instead, it seems to be biased toward playing the songs that are played most frequently.

But that means it seems to be working against itself: it assumes a song is preferred because it got played a lot. But it was the one deciding to play it. I’m convinced that if I shuffled one playlist long enough I’d end up hearing the same song over and over again (“oh, Geoff like this because he’s listened to it a lot, so I’ll play it again!”).

The supposed “random order” is also fixed for some period of time. This appears to hold even if I restart the app, but not always. I have some smaller playlists where, after the app reached the end, it played everything again in the exact same order. It isn’t clear what it takes to get it to rebuild the shuffle order with any certainty.

That’s not how I expect shuffle to work. I’m expecting that, once it’s played everything, it will build a new order and start to play that. It’s what I’ve experienced with the Music app on my Apple devices. And if I restart the app on a device, the next time I try that playlist, the shuffle order is different again.

The Second Irritation: When Sync Doesn’t Work

The Apple apps don’t seem to try to synchronize shuffling playlists across devices. The “bad”, if you will, is that you can’t take up where you left off on another device. But the “good” is that each device has its own playback order, so you aren’t re-listening to the same sequence of songs.

Spotify playback synchronization works, but only if all instances of the app are active and connected. This can be a problem on iOS and iPadOS, because not all apps get to work in the background, or work at all times in the background.

This leaves me, often, having to re-listen to the same sequence of songs in the car that I just listened to for however long in the office. I’d rather it not do that.

The Third Irritation: The Disappearing Content

Because there’s no option to buy content in Spotify, availability is at the mercy of whatever licence agreement Spotify has with the music distributor. It isn’t a widespread problem, but I have discovered songs on playlists that I could play previously grayed-out because they aren’t available in Canada anymore. On Apple Music, for anything I’ve bought off the store, I still have it, even if it disappears from sale on the store later.

Okay, I get it, they don’t get a licence with no time limit. But if I had a way to buy the song, and get my own irrevocable, perpetual, non-transferrable licence, that could be avoided. But there’s no way to do that as far as I know.

The Fourth Irritation: No Sync of Downloaded Content

If I add audio files to Spotify on one device, they are available on that device and nowhere else. If I do the same with Apple Music, as long as the file is under 5GB in size, it will sync to all my other devices.

So, if I rip a CD (because there’s no digital copy of the music) and add it to my Apple Music library, it’s on all my devices. If I do that on Spotify, they only appear on the device where I added them. It’s annoying.

It Was Interesting, But I’m Done

I’m glad I gave Spotify a shot, because it wasn’t all bad. And if I had to use it because I’ve moved away from the Apple universe, then I could live with it. But while I have something that works better for me, I’m sticking with that.

I am not saying people should avoid Spotify. How I use it, what I expect, will be different that what others do. For some, Spotify is a far superior service compared to Apple Music. But it isn’t working for me in a way that I would like.

So You Want To Make Content?

Watching a Youtube video by Mary Spender got me thinking about content creation. In it, she discusses her thoughts on the future of her channel, asking her audience for some feedback and guidance. One thing she said really caught my attention, and I think it’s a very important point when it comes to making any kind of content. I was going to leave a comment, but since I do tend to ramble on, I thought it best to post something here instead and leave a link to it. Maybe it will be of value, maybe not.

No Change In My Plans

Okay, yes, I’ve been lax in putting up regular content. And, no, I have no plans to create videos or podcasts. I have toyed with the idea of a podcast, but I’m not sure I can commit to the time it takes to post one regularly enough, let alone be one that is interesting. I have no interest in doing one just to hear the sound of my own voice.

There is no change in my plans because, at the moment, I don’t really have a “plan” in the formal sense. I have some ideas of what I want to do, but that’s about it.

Be Actually Authentic

One point Mary made was that she was only going to make videos on topics that interested her. She wants her content to remain truly authentic. She had no interest in trying to create something viral or in chasing trends. To me, this is the core, central, fundamental, underlying principle for anyone creating anything in this space. If the creator of content isn’t actually into the content, or doesn’t feel some passion or connection to it, that will come through. Their work will appear to be inauthentic. It will be clear it is trying to pander to some short term trend or gimmick, and not contain something that they actually believe in. It will be shallow, hollow, a facade without substance.

I have watched videos from some content creators where it was clear they were only doing it for the money and the views. It became readily apparent in a few cases. A lot of their content was repetitive. It was shallow or vapid, and it was clearly there to either get you to watch or to generate a reaction (not a real conversation). After a handful of videos, I gave up. I believe I have at least one that I’ve told Youtube to stop recommending entirely.

Of Course, Revenue Can Be Important

For anyone trying to make a living off of their video or audio content, obviously creating something people want to watch (or even pay for) is important. If you hope to pay the bills, you obviously need to make something that’s marketable. But that content has to be more than an obvious attempt at a money grab, at least if you want an audience that sticks around for the long haul. Certainly, you can make something that is shocking or outrageous, or is aimed at gaming SEO systems. That might make you some money in the short term. But it can mean that, after you’ve ceased to be “the new hotness”, the audience moves on to the next thing.

Certainly, there are creators who are simply looking to hook into the “next big thing”, and milk it for as much as they can for as long as they can. Copycats are everywhere, in every arena, and in every genre. Streaming services will be flooded with certain styles or genres as soon as one or two become hot commodities. The same goes for games, fashion, and Youtube content. If that works for you, fine. But unless you can stumble upon the next hot trend, it may be a one-and-done situation.

Please, Care About Your Content

As a consumer of content, I ask that you create authentic content you have a passion for. Ideally, also have some expertise. Unless, of course, you’re documenting your growth and development in something new, hoping to teach others along the way.

But don’t just try to chase the most recent hot trend, Make content you care about, because then the audience will care about it, too. And they’ll come back reliably. Some will even pay you, through things like Patreon, to help you create more. I believe that’s the right answer to long-term and enduring success.

 

Erased Vocals, Incorrect Lyrics, Music Brilliance

I stumbled up on this video on YouTube by the Professor of Rock, and learned something about one of my all-time favourite songs, California Dreamin’ by the Mommas & the Poppas. Watch the details about the history of the song, and the consequences first. Then come back and read my thoughts on the subject, because I have some opinions of my own. None of them, though, will necessary conflict or contrast with those in the video.

Read more

Another Submission (And Rejection)

Rejection in writing is a fact of life. I have a short story that I worked on for the first few months of the year. It was originally written for a Writer’s Digest short story competition, but unfortunately, it didn’t win anything. Oh well, it was worth a shot. I revised (and expanded) the story, with a lot of feedback from Jim Bird, a friend who is also doesn’t pull punches when it comes to reviews. I submitted the story to Clarkesworld, but they didn’t accept it for publication. My latest submission was with Asimov, but unfortunately, they also said ‘no’. The next step is to submit it to another Writer’s Digest competition, and we’ll see how that goes.

The Beginnings of 80’s Music

Rick Beato recently released a video talking about some of the landmark albums that were released in 1978. He admits that the list is incomplete, but it features albums with songs that would come define a new era in music, what generally call “80’s music”.

Releases vs. Calendars

Music styles and genres don’t generally stick to formal calendar boundaries. Music is released when the artists and/or labels figure it’s ready. As such, there isn’t a clear delineation on a calendar when some “era” of music begins. But being who we are as humans, we will often describe something based on the decade we associate it with.

What we think of as “50’s music” didn’t really get started until 1954/1955, and lasted until around 1963/1964. There is “60’s music”, which didn’t get going until 1964 and transformed into “70’s music” closer to 1974. The disco era sort-of started in the mid-to-late 1970’s and by the early 1980’s it was pretty much gone. But in both these cases, there was overlap, there was a transition. There wasn’t a hard bright line that delineated these eras, and certainly not any that line up conveniently on decade boundaries.

A Defining Decade Personally

I turned 16 in 1980, so the 1980’s defined a lot for me personally. I finished high school, then university, and had my first full-time job. It was the decade that I moved out on my own. It was when I bought my first new car. We had the Winter Olympics in Calgary, and the Flames made two trips to the Stanley Cup final, winning in 1989. My brother and I attended Game 1 of the 1986 Cup finals, which was the only game the Flames won in that series.

Music has always been a big part of my life, if only as the ‘soundtrack’ to it. I spent 4 years at the University of Calgary with headphones on or nearby. My knock-off of a Walkman was eventually replaced by a real Sony Walkman for my last year of university, and it or a small boombox were ever-present from 1986 onward. I was always playing music somewhere: around the apartment, in the car, when coding. During university, most of that music was typical 80’s music: Billy Joel, Genesis, The Police, and a host of others. I also listened to a lot of ELO, and they became one of my favourite bands, along with The Moody Blues.

1978 Was A Watershed Year

When you listen to Rick’s list, you get the first or new albums from some quintessential 80’s music acts: Dire Straits, Billy Joel, The Police, Kate Bush, AC/DC, Van Halen, Bob Seger, Devo, Rush, Peter Gabriel. More would come in 1979 with acts that had debut or new albums such as Pat Benetar and Genesis. These groups and others began to transform the sound of popular music, and genres like New Wave would find their footing.

1978 was definitely a watershed year. It is, I would argue, the beginning of what we think of as “80’s music” in western culture.

A Bit Of A Letdown

Warning: the contains spoilers regarding Succession, specifically regarding the series finale. I discuss events in the show that will spoil key plot points, so continue reading at your own risk.

That Was Disappointing

Almost all the critics are raving about the Succession finale, and how the show wrapped up. I found it disappointing. It wasn’t nearly as big a twist as it could have been, and it was, in some ways, a rather conventional way to end the show. The ending also was a bit nonsensical in my mind.

The show was brilliantly written, and the performances were stunning. Its production values were impeccable, and it did a fantastic job of poking fun at the ultra-wealthy. There is no question that these people are completely out of touch with life in the real world. Even Logan, who at least knew a simpler life, has lost any connection to life for ordinary people.

However, for a show purporting to be a dark comedy, I didn’t find it particularly funny. The characters were cruel and selfish. Okay, I won’t discount that it’s just how I’m wired. But I never saw any real comedy, unless you count the fact that the technical business elements were beyond ludicrous. Sure, rich people get away with a lot, but nowhere near what happened in the show. They would have been doing it to other very rich, very well connected people. Those other wealthy people would not have put up with it, and would have the means to make them pay for those transgressions.

At least the showrunners were honest about it. They made it clear they were making no effort to be accurate on the business side of things. Knowing that helped, because then I could focus on the rest of the show.

The show was also one season too long. Season 3 felt like rehash of Season 2, and we could have done without it in some ways. It would have made for a tighter overall story arc: Season 1 is setup and we see the first positioning of each of the players; Season 2 we get knives going in and out of various backs, with shifting alliances, while adding in Matsson and the Gojo deal; Season 3 we wrap it all up.

But that’s not what happened. We have the show as it is. It’s the final episode, and how it resolved, that left me underwhelmed. The choice of Tom wasn’t nearly as big a twist as far as I’m concerned. Before exploring why, and where I think the show could have gone, let’s examine things a bit, and take some things off the table.

The Mind of Matsson

There were two outcomes to the Gojo deal: the board accepts it or rejects it. For the “accepts it” outcome, we need to try to delve into the Mind of Matsson. All we have to go on, of course, is what he said and what he did.

The first thing we know is that he needs an American CEO to fend off the regulators. This does not have to be permanent, but it has to be long enough that the regulators lose interest and move on to other targets. There are plenty of options in the cast for that role.

The second thing we know is that he isn’t looking for a partner. Matsson was blunt with Tom about that. What Matsson wants is a caretaker and a puppet. The CEO’s job is to run the day to day. In some ways, it’s more “COO” than “CEO”. But Matsson is the brains, and he will make all the important decisions. The CEO is there to do is bidding, nothing more.

These two things inform who could be a potential CEO under Matsson. Before exploring the boring, obvious choices, let’s take a few outliers off the table. Hugo, Kerry, and Peter (Caroline’s lapdog) were never going to make sense, from a business point of view or a plot point of view. Picking any of them would have been a silly ending to an otherwise serious show. It would have been a farce, not a comedy. A show with Shakespearian aspirations wouldn’t have allowed itself to go there.

Conner was also obviously out. That, too, would have been a devolution into farce, neither comedy nor tragedy. Don’t even pretend that Willa was in the picture.

The Obvious, Boring Picks

Karl, Frank, Gerri. From a conventional point of view, any of them would make sense. All are perfectly capable of filling the Puppet CEO role. As a “real world” pick, any of them would be the most conventional choices. They are American, they are familiar with the organization, and they would be fine as minions working for Matsson until the regulatory heat subsided.

Gerri might have chafed under the yoke of Matsson. The guy is a bit of a misogynist, treating women badly. I also think the character had greater ambitions, and actually wanted the job in a real sense, not just on paper. That seemed clear from the earliest episodes of the show.

Karl and Frank would probably have been content with taking the job, collecting their salary and bonus, and retiring when putting in a “real CEO” became an option. Both were nearing retirement age, and the Waystar/Royco CEO job was temporary in nature.

Tom Was Uninspired

Tom getting the job was the boring choice. I don’t find that much of a “twist” in the way that other twists have unfolded in the past four seasons. It also didn’t make logical sense, when examining Matsson and what he said and did.

First, Matsson didn’t like Tom. That was clear from the very first time they met. Matsson seemed to find him annoying, verging on obnoxious, and utterly forgettable. That all of a sudden Tom was someone he could work with, when he clearly didn’t like the guy, seemed silly. Matsson was going to fire him. He didn’t really want him running ATN. And now it’s okay he’s the CEO?

Second, Tom comes with baggage, in the form of a wife who is from the family Matsson is replacing. Does Matsson really want to have to deal with that drama? Tom is not going to end it with Shiv. His actions have been of a man who is desperately trying to avoid a divorce. Sure, Tom poisoned the lawyer pool, but that seems more an attempt to keep Shiv from successfully ending things. How long before Shiv tries to worm her way back into the organization in some way? Marionettes don’t work very well when someone else is trying to pull on the strings.

Third, we know that Tom has ambitions. He made that clear from the moment we met him. Sure, he was more than happy to get his skull neck deep into whatever ass needed to be placated. But Tom wants more, and that is the opposite of what you want in a puppet. Successful puppets don’t have agency or ambition.

It just wasn’t that big of a twist, at least to me. Logically he makes no sense. Emotionally he is a goofy choice. Not an odd or “out in left field” choice, but one that just doesn’t work. This outcome isn’t consistent with how the show has gone for the past four seasons.

The Kids

Before I get to my pick (and you can see where I’m going), let’s examine the plot had Shiv not turned on her brothers. This would have been the conventional ending. It’s the one most of us probably expected during the opening episodes. It was one that is anything but a plot twist, and would have been inconsistent with the rest of the show.

Ken was in the best position from the outset to take over. It looked at the start that Ken was the “favourite son” of Logan, as much as he could be. While the effort was half-assed, Ken was sort of being groomed for the job. At least about as much as a self-absorbed egotist like Logan would have groomed someone. In some ways, the “groomed but not really groomed” makes sense as an approach for someone not willing to leave capable assassins lurking about.

It was also clear that Ken was an abysmal choice. For a guy who was going to run a communications company, he couldn’t communicate. Ken couldn’t string more than three words together at a time without someone writing them down for him. He was hopelessly bad at expressing himself, and he spoke in tongues most of the time. Ken was a horrible person, unclear on what he really wanted, and ill-suited to the job.

So were Shiv and Roman. Shiv is a flake, and Roman is a playboy gadabout who wilts in the face of any serious heat. Picking any of the three would have been the boring, uninspired story choice. Worse, picking a Roy sibling would have been a good “studio” decision because it would open the potential to make a sequel series. A sequel is unnecessary. The social commentary has been made, and there’s no point in belabouring it.

The Real Twist

The real plot twist would have been picking cousin Greg. We first see him as a doped up, lazy, uninspired young man puking in a mascot costume. He makes his entry into the family by using his grandfather, Logan’s older brother Ewan. Tom sees what he believes is a kindred spirit, an “outsider” trying to climb a ladder using richer, well-connected people. Tom also sees what he thinks is a convenient underling, someone he can “punch down” on knowing they aren’t going to walk away. And Tom gets to push around a family member, one he believes can’t or won’t fight back.

Greg, though, is both a twist and logically consistent. He doesn’t come with the family baggage like Tom, who is still married to Shiv and is unlikely to change that situation. Ewan will never be a problem, because he’s disowned Greg. With his payout, Ewan will never get involved in Waystar/Royco again.

Matsson likes Greg, and he has figured out that Greg doesn’t really have any real ambition. Greg would make the ideal puppet. He knows his way around the company, he’s not going to get out of line, and he’s just happy to be there. Of the main characters outside of Logan, it is Greg that is the only one who’s shown a real spine when it comes to dirty work.

Greg has had to deliver all manner of bad news, including firing people en masse. He’s more than willing to swing the axe, which would take heat off of Matsson, since big changes will be needed. It was also Greg who had the sense to keep all that incriminating evidence from the cruise line. It never occurred to Tom to do something with it.

Tom is completely incapable of anything truly underhanded, let alone messy or dirty. The man also folds under any kind of pressure. The only person Tom has ever been able to push around is Greg, and as the series has unfolded, it looks more like Greg is allowing it to keep Tom in the dark. Greg was manipulating Tom far more than the other way around. Greg could have been the show’s Keyser Söze.

The best twist on top of all this would have been that Matsson was actually working with Greg to make sure the deal happened. And Matsson would be doing it without his own people knowing, so they play their part properly. That would have been brilliant in my mind. Finding out that Greg, looking like a mole for the Roy children, was really working for Matsson all this time would have been a twist within a twist.

Glad I Watched It, But…

Even though the ending is less than satisfying to me, I’m not completely disappointed, either. I wasn’t sure about the show at first, but I’m glad I did see it. The writing, the performances, and the larger social commentary was incredibly well done.

But is it worth a re-watch? There I’m not sure. I’m glad I didn’t buy it to add to my library. As good as the individual elements are, I don’t see this as something I want to watch again. It also may not age particularly well. It’s a product of its time, and a lot of the themes may feel a bit tired in a few years.

Would I recommend it to others? I would have to know the person in question. I have friends that I think would find it very entertaining. There are others that I believe would find it a bit vacuous and shallow, even with the brilliant performances behind it. Still others would find it frustrating, and possibly even incomprehensible.

Succession isn’t for everyone. You have to be comfortable with a show with absolutely no good guys. There is no one to root for. If you’re hoping for something like Billions, where at least they get the financial aspects pretty close, you will be very disappointed.

To wrap up: it is brilliantly written, with incredible performances, and stunning production quality. It earned every award it has received, and may have deserved some it didn’t get. But it is an acquired taste. I’m glad I watched, but I probably won’t watch it again.