This is the end, my friends.
word.
SOARING TICKET PRICES!!
Yikes! I just got a very welcome e-mail from a guy going to the 9:30 this week informing me of insane surcharges on the tickets he purchased. I must heartily apologize to any and all who have experienced this as well. Honestly, I didn't even look into who was handling ticketing for this show, but of course, the culprit (if you don't go directly through the club) is... yeah, you guessed it: Ticketmaster. And of course, as I now look at my own web-site, I see that there's a Ticketmaster link below a bunch of the shows... DUH... Man, am I sorry about this. Alright, well anyway, I present, for your perusal, our conversation below, and ask you to accept my apologies to the "D" as apologies to you as well. We'll stay on top of it, I promise...
On Jun 11, 2005, at 4:21 PM, D**** wrote:
Hey, this email might be better sent to your bookign agent, but I was wondering why you book with clubs that use the great evil that is ticketmaster? Is it because they usually are larger venues or is this just something you don't normally pay attention to? I'm only asking because I was buying a ticket to your show at the 9:30 club in Washington DC, which is 12 dollars, but with all the extra surcharges, it becomes a $25 dollar show. I hate to sound whiny, even though that's probably what I'm coming off as, but do you think that on future tours you could support smaller venues, or is that just not an option?
Thanks, D*****
-- Response:
Ouch! That is rough, man -- I'm sorry about that. I just tried to buy a ticket through Ticketmaster myself, and found that if I chose to pick it up at the venue, it comes out to just under $20, which is still ridiculous, but not $25 -- did you ask them to overnight it to you or something? It sucks, either way, I know... One option would have been to buy them directly from the 9:30 box office, but that doesn't really help you at this point, either... Ticketmaster is an organization that has never really been a part of our equation before, and assuming that on-line ticketing would be done through the club (as it is at most of the places we've been playing for the past many many years) we didn't really look into what was going on with it for this particular show. Oddly enough, though, one thing I do know about Ticketmaster, is that the DC Ticketmaster franchise is the only one in the country that wasn't bought out by the larger corporation, and thus, remains independent of much of their shittiness. Apparently not enough of it, though! Be that as it may, when we have only one night to spend in a town, we have to face the crappy choice of having more than half of the people who might want to see us not be able to get in by playing the smaller clubs we've all been accustomed to, or going with the bigger clubs (9:30 in DC, Irving Plaza in NYC, etc.). And I don't mean to diss the 9:30 -- it's an amazing club, that we're psyched to be able to "move up" to -- but in essence, it's the spike in attendance that's why we're there this time around, and not doing multiple nights at the Black Cat, like last time. For instance, in December, at the Cat, we did two nights, with each night over-selling to 800+ people in a 600 capacity club. We simply can't stay for multiple nights on this trip, so we had to go with the 9:30, which has a 1200 capacity, still, possibly locking some people out, but considerably less than had we gone with the Cat again for only one night. You can't really just block out 2/3 of the people who want to come see you, so unfortunately, small venues aren't really an option sometimes. We are, however, extremely conscientious about the "business" side of our business. I've spent the last "x" amount of years of my life playing small venues, and learning how to control the things you need to, while allowing your "thing" to grow, and you can bet that there's a reason for just about every choice I (and Mahmood, my booking agent) make. This time, however, things were being booked while I was overseas for months, blah, blah, blah, not much of an excuse, I know... and it seems like we dropped the ball. I apologize for that. I'm sorry you had such a frustrating experience -- I'll be sure to look deeper into ticketing issues for the next tour! Thanks.
--TL
P.S. -- I hope you won't mind me putting this conversation on my website, in case there are others who are wondering what you are as well. I'll delete your name and e-mail addy. Thanks!
So sorry about this everybody!
Always Learning,
--Ted
Neurotica
Strolling down U St. yesterday afternoon, Kriston and I passed by the grime-covered, dilapidated storefront of Exotic Pleasures—a depressing, lurid establishment that seems to have weathered a great deal, but never a customer.
K: Guh, how does that place stay in business?
Me: I know. Who would want to fulfill their pleasures there?
K: Wasn't there one of those by your old house in Austin? It was all hip, and...
Me: ...earthy, and "Oooh, I'm so comfortable with my sexuality." [pause] Although, I imagine it would be strange to have an exotic pleasures store that was not comfortable with sexuality.
K: That would be pretty great. A repressed sex shop.
Me: Yeah, your toy could come with flagellation devices so you could go "Oh God, I hate myself!"
K: And the videos they sell would just show a man and a woman sitting on a bed, and him going "I swear this never happens."
Me: And she's all, "Oh, it's really okay! It's normal!"
K: And then that's the end.
Me: The name of the store could be: Crying While Masturbating. For Catholics.
Independent experts called the new findings provocative, but criticized the Heritage team's analysis as flawed and lacking the statistical evidence to back its conclusions. The new findings have not been submitted to a journal for publication, an author said. The independent experts who reviewed the study said the findings were unlikely to be published in their present form.
AT FIRST GLANCE, "Class Matters" — the New York Times’ epic inquiry into the widening economic divisions of the new millennium — appears to be what its editors solemnly claim: a well-intentioned effort to reckon with a serious social condition, one that notoriously eludes clear understanding in America, so long hymned as the planet’s pre-eminent land of opportunity. Alas, however, the New York Times is in no position to deliver. In contrast to, say, the paper’s conscientious reporting on the ’60s-era civil-rights movement in the South, its foray into class consciousness suffers from a fatal flaw. Social class is at the core of the Times’ institutional identity, which prevents the paper from offering the sort of dispassionate, critically searching discussion the subject demands.
Even as the paper takes hits for its alleged liberal bias, it retains a supremely undeviating affinity for the cultural habits of the rich and celebrated — most obviously in its Sunday Vows section, which features short celebratory biographies of newly consummated mateships from the overclass. The Sunday Styles section — along with the Home and Dining sections, the T: Style magazine, and the recently added Thursday Styles — delivers breathless dispatches on the mores, tastes, status worries, and modes of pecuniary display favored by the coming generation of anxious downtown arrivistes.
Instead Scott and Leonhardt marshal their readers through a leisurely tour of hoary American social mythology. America, they purr, "has gone a long way toward the appearance of classlessness" — meaning, one supposes, that the downwardly mobile middle classes are actually thriving on the appearance of being in possession of wealth and disposable income, as though, by analogy, it would have been perfectly acceptable to report design upgrades in segregated Southern drinking fountains as a meaningful advance for black civil rights. "Social diversity," they explain, "has erased many of the markers" separating the country’s haves from the have-nots. Yet they fail to recognize that a more socially diverse ruling class remains a ruling class, after all — an uncomfortable truth easily overlooked when one is writing for an influential organ of said ruling class.
Vanity Fair's story hinted at but did not answer a key journalistic question: Was Felt, who is 91 and in ill health from a stroke, of sound enough mind to have confirmed his identity to O'Connor[the Felt family's lawyer and driving force behind the Vanity Fair article], or to have told Woodward that their agreement had ended?
The Vanity Fair story muddies the issue somewhat. O'Connor notes in the story that Felt told him, "I'm the guy they called Deep Throat," but the context is lacking. For one thing, O'Connor played a dual role: He was providing the Felt family with legal advice while also writing a magazine story, which meant that Felt's revelation may have been information provided under attorney-client privilege and therefore not subject to unilateral disclosure.
What's more, as O'Connor makes clear in his story, the Felt family was seeking to profit from Felt's secret identity and therefore had an incentive to pressure a clearly conflicted Felt into going public.