WNBA deserves some fault for its quirky scheduling, but my bigger issue here is with the reality of the deal not being what it was cracked up to be.
The game distribution is clearly way too low if you could have a situation where you have four tournament games on one night -- one involving one of your biggest-drawing young stars, the other involving the league's best player (and two marquee franchises) -- and not a single one even on a streaming service.
Obviously the economics worked out well enough to get the players paid, which is great, but the actual game allotment is less impactful than I'd hoped.
We heard all about this transformative WNBA TV deal and yet we have four inexplicably untelevised games tonight. Why isn’t there a nightly game at least on streaming?
And then the real kicker: they have a TV doubleheader tomorrow against game 1 of the NBA finals. The one night where taking off actually would have made sense.
I also see a potential doublestandard here. People wear "I've seen (insert jam band) 800 times" as a badge of honor. People used to follow rock bands on tour all the time in the 60s-80s. But because it's a modern pop star people will probably look at it differently.
She's not locking herself in a room watching the same livestream all month. She's seeing an artist she clearly loves in different cities, where she'll meet new people and have awesome experiences.
I personally believe people should do what makes them happy. They shouldn't feel pressure to "go out" just to go out. But this even holds up against the latter standard. It's very much "going out." It's very much an active, memory-building experience.
Yes, it's an absolute privilege to be able to do this. Criticize that if you want. But positioning this as some sort of anti-social / limiting experience is so wild to me, as it's very literally the opposite.
i never understood this. do you not have a job? or school? or a life? yes they’re in advance so people don’t have plans but surely you’ll end up missing out on so much with friends and family as a result?
@thehomiehopper Luke Combs-Tracy Chapman is probably the closest to true "moment" we've had recently. But I still think the impact pales in comparison to how difficult/rare it is to achieve that kind of impact on any awards stage that isn't the Grammys.
A few reasons.
1) I feel like we've seen a building "I don't play for free" mindset, perhaps due to the growing emphasis on touring revenue. It's become common to see artists be interview vs. musical guests on talk shows. Or just appear at awards shows vs. perform. And there are some artists you just never really see do TV gigs.
2) In general, I no longer think there's as much confidence in TV as a promo medium. I still think there's magic associated with *being* on TV (just as there is with hearing your song on the radio), but if you actually have "promo goals," few TV options are going to move the needle.
3) And when the *linear TV broadcast* does move the needle, it's rarely with the target young/streaming demo. That demo is primarily activated when the clip gets traction on social. If that's the case, why not just go straight to the source with social performance content that's easier to quality-control and can be done on your own terms.
4) Ironically, the very fact that we're talking about awards shows as a possible promo vehicle proves the biggest point: these ceremonies have lost their inherent prestige. Even the Grammys. You rarely have people going *just because* it's such a big night. They go if they're nominated, booked as a performer, or obligated to promote something. And if those are bigger drivers than "just being part of a prestigious ceremony," then you do calculations on those drivers. If performing at the AMAs isn't inherently special, and the show isn't likely to move the needle on my single or album, why should I bother playing it?
guys why don’t popstars preform at award shows anymore? like olivia rodrigo is in the middle of a album rollout, why isn’t she performing drop dead or the cure at the American Music Awards?
Admittedly, this is somewhat driven by a change in how the most vocal consumers react to performances.
Historically, it always felt like there was a demand for a "moment." Be it a super raw, powerhouse ballad. A special collaboration. Something controversial.
Now, it seems like the loudest voices (social media users) almost prefer when artists do a basic "sounds like the record" performance with visuals from the music video.
Occasionally someone will win points for breaking from that trend (Doechii at the Grammys), but it rarely feels like these "moments" are celebrated as such.
Olivia played SNL, which is probably one of the final non-sports TV properties that carries prestige as an "event." But even then, it wouldn't shock me if we soon start seeing big music names only host -- versus perform and/or do double duty.
I mentioned that rhythm can trump grammar in popular music.
I also wouldn’t put it past her to either be using the language Kim’s kid might use (us two is youthful phrasing) or even be taking a deep shot here. Like maybe there’s an example of Kim saying “us two” somewhere.
So no need for a controversy. But that doesn’t mean the grammar is technically correct, and it’s weird that some won’t just admit that.
No one’s sharper and more intentional with their songwriting than Taylor, so I wouldn’t rule out a clever poetic explanation.
But the grammar is wrong in a traditional sense, which is common in music to preserve rhythm/flow/rhyme scheme. We see this with “The Way I Are.” “Everything She Do Just Turns Me On.” The double negatives in the drivers license and Satisfaction hooks. Countless other examples.
First, let’s debunk this weird claim that “song” is the subject. It’s not. The subject is the noun performing the verb (know). “us two” in this case.
Right off the bat, that technically means that “us two” should be “we two.” You wouldn’t say “us know/s about you.”
And you still have an agreement issue. I want to be sympathetic to the “collective noun” argument (I’ve caught heat for using band names as singular nouns), but that’s just not how the pronouns we and us operate in common English. They inherently and explicitly refer to multiple people. You don’t say “we two is at the mall.”
GrubHub honestly smokes UberEats on the CX, at least in NY:
* Much fairer refund process
* No sneaky fee-gouging when you use a promo
* And no fees period over $50
* More accurate delivery estimates, with auto credit if they’re late
The only weaknesses are in brand name, app aesthetic, and the overhyping of the terrible “Wonder” restaurants. The Amazon integration counters the Uber ride integration.
And yet, Uber smokes them as a business.
The chart watcher in me probably would have released something more overtly poppy and commercial.
But the music fan in me loves the new Olivia song. Great lyrics, influences from the iconic Everlong and Tonight Tonight, and the year’s most magical bridge.
So you literally cannot fathom someone who:
- is hungry but too drunk to drive
- is hungry but too busy to cook or leave the house
- is sick/injured and unable to cook or leave the house
- doesn't know how to cook a high-quality meal
- doesn't have a car and isn't within walking distance of a particular cuisine they're craving
- has a car but wants food from a restaurant with limited parking
- doesn't have enough fridge or pantry space to store an entire grocery store's worth of ingredients
- doesn't have a full kitchen setup in their dorm or small apartment
- is celebrating pizza night with their family
- is hosting a party at their house and can't leave mid-party to pickup the wings
and might want to take advantage of a delivery service? The concept "blows your mind"?
None of this is to say that these people shouldn't pay fees/tips for the convenience, but it is to say that there are dozens of reasons why people order delivery. And why delivery has been a staple of the food industry for decades.
It actually blows my mind that people pay for food taxis. Like I legitimately cannot fathom this.
I’m an engineer. My husband is an engineer. One might say we could easily afford Door Dash. Yet, we have literally never ordered it on our own dime in my entire life. Not even once.
It's true that you don't need a car in much of NYC.
But it's also true that people overstate the convenience/walkability of NYC (especially non-Manhattan boroughs) in comparison to other cities.
A car was deemed "essential" when I lived in Tampa, but I absolutely could have survived without one: used my apartment gym, walked to the local bodega for essentials, shopped via Amazon, DoorDashed groceries, and Uber'd to bars and restaurants.
A car is deemed "unessential" in my current Queens neighborhood, but without one, I'd be doing most of those exact same things (save for bars/restaurants if I'm down to stay very local or take a long subway ride with transfers).
I can't stand engagement bait, but credit where it's due, this one got me.
What in the holy f*ck are people in this thread talking about? No one alive enough to use X was taught it was anything other than Atlanta, the capital since 1868.
*Maybe* you're personally conflating Augusta, ME with GA, or maybe you're surprised that the biggest city is also the capital since that's not always the case ... but you weren't taught anything else by any actual school.