Category Archives: The Contrarian

Raging Against Machines


There’s a moment in the Netflix documentary ‘I’m Tim’, about Avicii, the Swedish DJ and producer, where you see him meticulously layering loops, samples, and beats, building what millions have danced to as electronic masterpieces.

It’s impressive, but as I watched, something unsettling crept in: where are the instruments? The lyrics? The human element?

I’m not naive. Technology has been a part of music for decades.

But as I sat there watching Avicii tweak yet another sample, I realized something: the heart of music has shifted from the garage to the laptop. Grunge died in the mid-’90s, and with it, a visceral kind of authenticity. No rock genre replaced it.

Sure, some will argue rock never really dies. Bands like Foo Fighters still fill arenas. Greta Van Fleet tries valiantly to resurrect Zeppelin. Even My Chemical Romance managed a triumphant return.

These aren’t flashes in the pan—they’re acts that remind us of what rock can be. Raw. Sweaty. Alive.

But these are exceptions, not the rule.

For most under 30, guitars are relics, and lyrics are just hooks to frame beats. Producers like Avicii—rest his soul—have become the new rock stars. They sell out festivals, collaborate with pop icons, and dominate global charts.

What they don’t do is play instruments or write melodies from scratch. What they create is built on layers of digital perfection: loops clipped and polished, beats algorithmically aligned, and voices autotuned into oblivion.

I don’t say this as a cranky purist longing for the days of Kurt Cobain’s jagged screams or Eddie Vedder’s gruff poetry. I say this because we’ve lost something essential in the transition.

Music used to be messy. Bands recorded in basements. Guitars wailed, often out of tune. Lyrics stumbled and faltered but said something.

Now it’s all about precision. Streamlining. Hitting the dopamine centers in three minutes or less.

Even rock bands that manage to break through today feel sanitized. Compare Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” to, say, Imagine Dragons’ “Believer.” Both are hits. Both lean into angst. One, however, feels like an explosion; the other, like a PowerPoint presentation set to music.

Am I saying music is dead? Of course not. But rock as we knew it—the rebellion, the grit, the imperfections that made it human—is gone.

Avicii’s music moved millions, and his talent is undeniable. But as I watched that documentary, I couldn’t help feeling like I was watching the future devour the past. A future of loops, not lives. Machines, not bands.

The machines have taken over. And no one is fighting back.

That’s just not the rock and roll way.

Substack: The New Free Press

Rough sketch of cartoon killed

Why I’m quitting the Washington Post

Democracy can’t function without a free press

ANN TELNAES

JAN 03, 2025

I’ve worked for the Washington Post since 2008 as an editorial cartoonist. I have had editorial feedback and productive conversations—and some differences—about cartoons I have submitted for publication, but in all that time I’ve never had a cartoon killed because of who or what I chose to aim my pen at. Until now.

The cartoon that was killed criticizes the billionaire tech and media chief executives who have been doing their best to curry favor with incoming President-elect Trump. There have been multiple articles recently about these men with lucrative government contracts and an interest in eliminating regulations making their way to Mar-a-lago. The group in the cartoon included Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook & Meta founder and CEO, Sam Altman/AI CEO, Patrick Soon-Shiong/LA Times publisher, the Walt Disney Company/ABC News, and Jeff Bezos/Washington Post owner. 

While it isn’t uncommon for editorial page editors to object to visual metaphors within a cartoon if it strikes that editor as unclear or isn’t correctly conveying the message intended by the cartoonist, such editorial criticism was not the case regarding this cartoon. To be clear, there have been instances where sketches have been rejected or revisions requested, but never because of the point of view inherent in the cartoon’s commentary. That’s a game changer…and dangerous for a free press.

Over the years I have watched my overseas colleagues risk their livelihoods and sometimes even their lives to expose injustices and hold their countries’ leaders accountable. As a member of the Advisory board for the Geneva based Freedom Cartoonists Foundation and a former board member of Cartoonists Rights, I believe that editorial cartoonists are vital for civic debate and have an essential role in journalism. 

There will be people who say, “Hey, you work for a company and that company has the right to expect employees to adhere to what’s good for the company”. That’s true except we’re talking about news organizations that have public obligations and who are obliged to nurture a free press in a democracy. Owners of such press organizations are responsible for safeguarding that free press— and trying to get in the good graces of an autocrat-in-waiting will only result in undermining that free press.

As an editorial cartoonist, my job is to hold powerful people and institutions accountable. For the first time, my editor prevented me from doing that critical job. So I have decided to leave the Post. I doubt my decision will cause much of a stir and that it will be dismissed because I’m just a cartoonist. But I will not stop holding truth to power through my cartooning, because as they say, “Democracy dies in darkness”.

Thank you for reading this.

Why The NBA Is Dying


The NBA is losing its grip on America’s attention, and the numbers prove it.

Over the past 20 years, the league has experienced an explosion in three-point shooting, growing from an average of 15.8 attempts per game in 2004 to a staggering 37.5 this season.

Yet, despite the increase in volume, the league’s three-point shooting percentage has remained stagnant, hovering around 35%. This inefficiency from beyond the arc isn’t just a basketball problem—it’s a business problem.

I love basketball. My mother, nicknamed “Mighty Mouse” in high school, earned her scholarship playing for Vanderbilt’s women’s team back when Peabody College was part of the program.

She taught me to love the beauty of the game: the pick-and-roll, the mid-range jumper, the art of the post-up. Today, those fundamentals are gasping for air in a league drowning in three-point attempts.

TV ratings have been declining for years, mirroring the rise of the three-point era. In the 2010-11 season, games on ABC averaged over 5 million viewers.

By last season, that number was barely 1.4 million—a 72% drop. This season, ESPN’s ratings are down another 28%, and TNT’s viewership is flat at best.

It’s not just that teams are shooting more threes. It’s that they’re shooting them at the expense of everything else.

The mid-range game? Dead. The post game? Buried. Even fast breaks often end in players pulling up for a corner three instead of attacking the rim. The obsession with “math” has turned the game into a spreadsheet.

And yet, the math isn’t even working. The league-wide shooting percentage on threes hasn’t budged in two decades. The supposed efficiency of these shots is an illusion when players are chucking them up in record numbers without any meaningful improvement in accuracy.

There’s a simple fix: the return of the inside game. Closer shots increase accuracy, plain and simple. Dominant big men like Shaquille O’Neal and Tim Duncan thrived because they lived in the paint, punishing defenses and drawing fouls.

Re-emphasizing the post game and mid-range play wouldn’t just diversify the offensive landscape—it would make games more engaging and unpredictable.

This isn’t the game my mother played. It isn’t the game I fell in love with. The drama of the NBA—the David versus Goliath battles, the thrill of last-second buzzer-beaters—feels diluted when every possession is a predictable sequence of drive-and-kick to the perimeter.

Fans notice. They’re not just voting with their remotes; they’re walking away. Critics like Shaquille O’Neal and B.J. Armstrong have called the modern game robotic, a monotonous barrage of three-point attempts that sacrifices entertainment for analytics.

This is still basketball, but it’s not the same game. It’s an endless loop of three-point attempts that rarely deliver the payoff they promise.

The NBA doesn’t need to eliminate the three-point shot, but it desperately needs to restore balance.

Until then, fans like me—and the viewers the league depends on—will keep looking elsewhere.

The NBA bet big on the three-point revolution. So far, it’s not a winning shot.