Tag Archives: Second City

“End of Beginning” and Chicago

Posted on by

One song popular in the last few years, “End of Beginning,” references Chicago in its chorus:

Photo by Alena Darmel on Pexels.com

And when I’m back in Chicago, I feel it
Another version of me, I was in it
I wave goodbye to the end of beginning

This song is “End of Beginning” by Djo, an artist name for Joe Keery who went to college in Chicago and then later left for New York City:

In a recent interview, the Newburyport, Massachusetts, native said he’s “excited” to get back to Chicago, where he studied theater at DePaul University.

Besides performing at Lollapalooza, he said he has plans to catch up with old friends and may even hit up Allende Restaurant, just steps away from the Lincoln Park campus. And at the top of his mind is a dip into Lake Michigan at Montrose Beach…

The last time the Sun-Times spoke with Keery, “End of Beginning” was one of the most popular sounds on TikTok. Though the song was released in 2022, fans made edits using the popular verse: “And when I’m back in Chicago, I feel it.”

It’s a song about closing the chapter on his life in Chicago before moving to New York City.

On one hand, the song seems to speak of good experiences in Chicago. The artist says he is looking forward to being in Chicago.

On the other hand, Chicago is the place before going to the real place of success: New York City. The singer may like Chicago but he finds fame elsewhere. One of Chicago’s nicknames is “The Second City” and this may have originated in its status behind New York. But now, those in acting or entertainment may need to go to New York or Hollywood/Los Angeles to make it big. Chicago might be a place to be when you are young but these larger coastal cities have a ability to launch you into the stratosphere.

For a number of American places, you could put together interesting playlists that speak to the character and music of a community. Add this song to the list of songs about Chicago and I am always interested in songs that namecheck specific places.

Will a declining newspaper really lead to a loss of stature for Los Angeles?

Posted on by

Newspapers across the United States have suffered circulation declines and employee layoffs in recent years. The Los Angeles Times has been no different and was even bought out by the Tribune Company. But can people really suggest that Los Angeles is losing stature because its primary newspaper is having trouble?

Since The Times was sold to Tribune, its newsroom staff has been cut in half. For many Angelenos, the downsizing is just one more sign that their city is losing stature. Add it to the list of other ego-bruising blows, like the loss of its professional football team, the flight of Fortune 500 companies from the city limits and a failed bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics.

“We don’t even have a football team. So what does that tell you?” said Mr. Cheeseborough, a note of resignation in his voice.

The Times’s weekday circulation has been nearly halved since 2000, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, falling to just over 600,000 — a far steeper rate of decline than at many other big dailies like The Chicago Tribune, The Detroit Free Press and The Washington Post.

To identify where all the local harrumphing comes from, it helps to understand just how closely the rise of The Times is associated with the rise of Los Angeles as a capital of culture and commerce.

The paper’s founding families, the Otises and the Chandlers, used their fledgling publication to push for the development that helped give rise to modern Los Angeles. Water was first piped into the San Fernando Valley because they arranged for it. Los Angeles Harbor was built in part because of their backing.

The suggestion here is that the newspaper decline is part of a recent serious of public failures. By invoking the founding families of the newspaper and their “growth machine”/boosterism efforts, the suggestion is the out-of-towners who manage the newspaper (from Chicago, no less) don’t care much about the city. And if the newspaper doesn’t care any more, then why should anyone in the city or outside the city care?

This argument seems spurious at best. There could be several things going on here:

1. There is resentment about a Chicago company owning the Los Angeles Times. Chicago and LA have had a long-term rivalry as Chicago almost overtook New York City in population in the 1890s (leading New York to annex all five boroughs into the city) and then Los Angeles grew tremendously after World War Two to overtake Chicago as the “Second City.” This is a matter of civic pride.

2. People who like newspapers or journalists are upset about the demise of the Times while the general population is not. Journalists tend not to like to see the decline of revered outlets. Could this just be journalists upset about the general decline of newspapers? The problems described in this story, less news, more ads, are emblematic of the entire industry.

3. This is simply bad timing. There is not a causal relationship here: the decline of the Los Angeles Times coincides with a number of other events.

In the end, do people really think that Los Angeles’ culture and commerce are going to decline precipitously in the near future because of its newspaper?