Famous for Being Famous

Hey, this is what I've been saying at the board!

From Globe and Mail.
Let us excori8 Live 8
By REX MURPHY

Saturday, June 25, 2005, Page A17

In the concept of celebrity, Marshall McLuhan's otherwise rather naked aphorism has some application: The medium is the message. Britney Spears is a celebrity because she is a celebrity. Paris Hilton, Madonna -- these are the great vessels of the vacant idea of our times. Famous for being famous.

The essence of celebrity is to maintain celebrity. Celebrities "do" things (sing badly, act poorly, dress strangely or not at all, talk rudely, smuggle dead raccoons on to talk shows), not for the sake of these things themselves, but as "hooks" to keep the cameras trained, to feed their gluttonous narcissism.

(Madame Duran will get the joke behind the Topic title/description)

OK, for those who've read me ranting enough, you know many things perplex me. I was hoping someone could answer one of my questions...

Why in the world do we allow these talentless twits like Brittany Spears and Nick Carter to infect our airwaves, when there are real artists out there who deserve more time and recognition than those bozos? Why is it that the general public can't ignore the bubble gum crap that's shoved down our throats, and rebel? I just can't understand how that mouth-open, gum chewing nimrod Brittany gets airtime. Christina Agulera (spelling?) is the only singer of that "Disney" era that has decent pipes, and can belt out cords with attitude. Singers like Leela James should be what our kids are introduced to, she's got style, talent, and soul. And don't even get me started on all those freakin rap videos that must be made from the same producers...

Another thing, who in the freak cares what Paris Hilton does? She's a waste of genetic material, she adds nothing to the collective intelligence of the American gene pool, and does nothing of value to help anyone but herself. Why do people care who she dates, where she goes, or anything else? Get a job girlfriend, get a life, do something worthwhile, and get the heck out of the recording studio, we have enough mindless music being thrown at us as it is.....



MH

I just loooove the whole Notorious album!! I started singing "Skin Trade" as soon as I read your subject line. **tee hee!!**


Getting back on topic...yeah, I totally understand and share your frustration. I think you already know the answer to your question(s) given Duran Duran's own struggle to find a new record label (both prior to and at the time of the reunion). Still, that doesn't provide any consolation, does it?

Record companies aren't making as much money as they used to, therefore, they only invest in something that will generate big money. It's all about the bottom line, dear. The era of long-term loyalty between label and artist is over. In the past, there was some degree of risk that major labels were willing to take on nurturing new or even older, "comeback" artists. It was definitely a "hit or miss" gamble but in exchange for the company's confidence in the artist's talent and creative vision, there was usually a giant payback in terms of album sales. If things didn't turn out successfully...ah well, there's enough money flowing to recoup losses and other bands to promote (or so went conventional thought at the time). Not anymore. Those days are GONE!!

"American Idol" is a perfect reflection of the present climate in music. A large group of contestants are weeded out by industry "experts" & popular vote; the finalists are packaged into a specific image and sound that's assumed to sell (based on whatever images/sounds that are already established on the charts--no boundary-pushing experimentation here!!); the winner is then crowned with instant celebrity and hyped ad nauseum. Will these (one-hit?) wonders continue to exist in the long run? Well, that's another story. Not that it really matters since the record company has already milked the financial benefits of that person's success. It's all a very SAFE way to conduct business without having to deal with too many uncertainties.

There's another thing that bothers me. Why is it that so many current artists sound the same? For every original of a given genre, there's a multitude of imitators. How many Nirvana/Green Day/Usher/Britney Spears clones do we need, really? It's as if a giant wall of audio conformity exists with very few distinctive voices or styles breaking through. More often than not, I can't even distinguish the difference beteween artists or even remember their names. Ironic that there's a plethora of music categories but not much diversity within those genres.

Why do talentless bimbos and jocks pass for "icons" these days? It's sad to think that our values and tastes have become so low to tolerate this stuff. Physical appearances, wealth and unsavory controversy are the big draws, it seems. Talent? What talent? Who needs talent when I can get in the press the cheap easy way...like videotaping my drunken rampage at a relative's wedding?


BTW, I heard Paris Hilton's single on iTunes yesterday. Oy vey. I've had the misfortune of hearing her sing before and I can say that vocal track was heavily doctored by some studio magic. The lyrics retain her air-headed stamp of approval, though.

And it's spelled Christine "Aguilera".

thanks for the clarification on the spelling hon, I didn't take the time to look it up on the net before I posted.

Yep (sigh), bands like Duran Duran don't come along all that often, but there is a band out that I like called, ummm AFI, the song "Miss Murder" and the video are both great. I haven't heard any of their older stuff though, I'll have to look into that. They sound like a band that JT would listen to!



MH

Madame Duran raised some of the financial considerations of the music industry that have played a role in the phenomenon.

Perhaps the age range of the perceived audience plays a small role.

I would assume that the record companies assume that a Britney Spears or an N'Sync would interest girls ages 11 to 16 (as opposed to beer-drinking, tattoo covered, balding, Hell's Angels bikers). They probably have lots of focus groups to figure this stuff out, too.

If you're marketing a band / singer to a bunch of 11 - 16 year old females, well, you're going to wind up with lots of Britney Spears and N'Syncs, I'd imagine.

I started tuning out of music in the 1990s because of that. In the 1980s, I listened to the radio all the time.

The sound-alike bands isn't a new thing, though, but it seems to have gotten worse by the 1990s.

In the late 1970s / early 1980s, you had a bunch of sound alikes, such as Toto, REO Speedwagon, Styx, Journey and any number of other bands making schmaltzy rock / pop. Someone older than I could probably reel off more examples.

All of those bands were more or less interchangeable.