Rolling Teenpop 2007 Thread

What I heard, I liked. Though I'm not sure what makes her special -- didn't we also make the Arctic Monkeys famous? Or is Youtube more special than Myspace?

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/01/25/youtube-phenom-mia-rose-has-her-thorns/

The Stone writeup on Mia Rose is coyer and more irritating than she is, but in a dull journalistic way that tries to hide its tracks. "In the last few weeks, vlogs from Mia Rose, a disturbingly well-packaged 18-year-old singer-songwriter, have become some of the most-viewed videos on YouTube. Rose is a well-scrubbed but coy girl-next-door with decent guitar skills, a welcome-to-Hollywood worthy voice and a knack for bearing her midriff without seeming trashy (harder than it looks)." "Obviously this girl is manipulating the YouTube system for her own gain, but is there anything wrong with that?" Well, Elizabeth, I don't know, you're the one who called her "disturbingly well-packaged." Why don't you tell us why you think there's something wrong with it, rather than suggesting that there is and then covering your ass by rhetorically implying there isn't, and not giving a single reason one way or another? "And what do you think of the tunes?" Well, Elizabeth, what do you think of them? Pretend social analysis, pretending to rise above the slime sell while being a dull little slime sell all its own. Journalism seems full of this.

(Writers of "Lose You" are Linda Sundblad, Tobias Karlsson, Alexander Kronlund, Klas Åhlund, the last of whom is in Teddybears STHLM and produced a lot of the most recent Robyn album. Producer of "Lose You" is Tobias Karlsson.)

Anyway, I enjoyed a couple of the songs that were posted, and didn't like a few others. I think there is definitely something charismatic about the girl - very sincere. And part of why her music is interesting is because of that personality. And I think that her circumventing of the traditional artist/audience divide (which isn't unique, but nonetheless) is very charming. Though I think the question of "is she for real?" is important, just not for the reasons that RS states. I think it's important because a lot of her appeal is her authenticity - not because it's undermining expectations if she's not. (And if it turns out she's not 'real,' whatever that means, she'll be interesting for that reason instead.)

Posing pirates, pink perky riots
Big D.P. bottles about to pop
Flamboyant peacocks, straight out of detox
And total chaos, it never stops... right?
--Linda Sundblad "Pretty Rebels"

If RS asked the first question outright, would you still consider it muddled?

If it is a marketing plan by a major label (or something) it was pretty poorly thought out since Youtube tracks the number of videos you watch, making inflation transparent to anyone patient enough to compile a montage of it happening (that's a link from Idolator, less nasty write-up than the RS one). So I can't say that the "anti-manufactured" tone is justified, but it is justifiable to say that whoever's aiding her popularity is doing it by creating the false appearance of grassroots democratic consensus. I'll bet it offends people as vote-tampering as much as it might as a "just another coporate manufactured pop star" story.

kokokokoii (12 hours ago)
no matter what was really going out there, these are what possible to happen in the future:

1)She is a cheater, and will never release any album.
2)Her is talent and has a attractive voice. There will be a company to contact her soon.

The reason for one to subscribe is because of her singing not the numbers or ratings. Why you wasted you time doing this?

It was the commenters, not Elizabeth, who brought up the dummy sites and the inflated subscriptions (unless Elizabeth was using her code words to try to suggest those, as well). I think that the - good - question she's trying to ask isn't "Is Mia diy or is she corporate?" but rather "No matter whether Mia is an actress playing a part, a singer coached on how to present herself, or someone who's in charge of her own presentation - or is even guilelessly being 'herself' - what's wrong with her trying to appeal to an audience?" This is a good question because sometimes there is something wrong, and also there's a deep culture-wide uneasiness with anything being straight-up appealing, as if pleasing an audience contaminates you.

As to the first point (whether there's sometimes something wrong), I think there's something wrong with the way Elizabeth Goodman is trying to appeal to her readers, so I'm not averse in principle to claims that there's something wrong with how Mia Rose is trying to appeal to viewers. As to the second point (a culture-wide uneasiness, that I share), that's what a good deal of my book is about, and so I hope that if you find my posts appealing you'll go out and buy my book (I get a dollar for every copy sold, and I need the money).

There's no inherent problem with the question "Is she real?" The problems arise because the reasons given to justify the answer "No" raise a whole bunch of questions themselves, and most people are intellectually lazy and don't ask the follow-up questions. But the problem isn't with the original question.

Another good question is why the question "Is she real?" keeps popping up throughout pop culture. If you dislike the question "Is she real?" you nonetheless will want to ask why the question is so persistent. Why are people asking it?

If someone claims that the Monkees are phonies because "they don't write their own songs" [incredibly, people still say this], the obvious follow-up question would be, "well, if I consider the Monkees fake for not writing their own songs, why don't I think the Animals and Aretha Franklin - who've hit with songs by the very same songwriters the Monkees used - are also fake?" (I've never in my life heard someone argue that the Animals and Aretha Franklin were fake for not writing "It's My Life" and "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place" and "Don't Bring Me Down" and "Natural Woman.") In the mid-Sixties an answer to the follow-up question might have been, "Aretha's real because she's black and sings the music soul; the Animals are real because they come on like hoods" - these responses, in their time, would not have been dumb at all, but are so problematic that they'd have inevitably provoked further thought.

THEY NEVER PLAY WEBSTAR F. YOUNG B'S "CHICKEN NOODLE SOUP."

No promotion at all for "Play With Fire" and now none for "With Love" either. I'm hoping, and choosing to believe, that they are waiting until it is closer to the release of the album before they start to push the songs hard. Maybe the sound of it is just so anti-American pop that they are just going to punt it in America.

I know.

other things wannabe pop stars and record companies can and do in fact do do: write their own reviews of their first records and send them to fanzines under pesudonyms (monster magnet did this, and i salute them for it; then again, monster magnet probably flunk every "authenticity" test you could come up with) ... "leak" their own records to the internet (pretty much every record company does this to one degree or another) ... request their own records on radio or anywhere else requests are taken (again, the whole industry can stand up and plead guilty to that one) ... acquire lots of "friends" in myspace who aren't really your "friends" and may not even have a clue who you are ... and so on and so forth. if mia rose is better at playing this game than other wannabe pop stars, then more power to her. in the end, either she's got it or she doesn't (i haven't heard a note yet), but what do a few thousand dummy accounts on youtube have to do with anything?

One thing that's interesting about Radio Disney is that, despite the fact that they could completely ignore their audience and plug whatever they feel like -- and I guess I have no proof they don't until I can figure out what they could possibly gain from keeping Hampton or Cha Cha or Crazy Frog in the countdown without popular support (maybe Disney owns the rights or something?) -- they do seem to actually count the votes. But they transparently stack the deck in just about every other way they possibly can.

Actually, one really interesting thing going on - particularly contrasting Burgess + Porcelana. Burgess lays it all out in the audition - her narrative is really out there. She's the hard luck girl, whose family isn't standing behind her. Porcelana keeps a little more back - because you know she's gotten here also against the odds, but it's not laid out there. Something is held back. You can hear it in Porcelana's voice, too. It sounds wearied - like it's been wrestling with life. That's why I'm rooting for Porcelana as my number one pick so far (but it'll definitely be an underdog rooting).

So yeah -- you might notice that all these people are from NY. That's cause... hometown pride. Heh. Actually, it's mostly because of Porcelana - who I've been searching for her name and only found tonight. So if you don't watch any of the others, watch hers. It's really great.

I'm on track five, which is the first one that makes me shrug, though it's not a bad dance track. In fact, as it's fading out, I'm feeling it more, a warm after-image. But now track six is really making me shrug. Slow jam. Doesn't have anything insinuatingly catchy, like, say, Ciara's "Promise" does. McPhee does seem anonymous, which isn't necessarily a criticism. Track seven, "Dangerous," is passionate, and I'm picking up. Chords of the verse initially reminded me of "Happy Together"/"Wild World"/"It's A Sin"/"Come Into My Arms," but they don't hold onto the pattern, unfortunately. Or maybe it wasn't there in the first place. Uh oh, Track eight starts off with sensitive piano. Her voice is warm, however. Something slightly Scottish sounding in the chorus. Or maybe that's in my imagination. Haven't heard a great song yet. Um, track nine, she's suddenly trying to be Kelis. A club banger. Also a shrugger. Her anonymity is going to hurt sales. Enjoying this overall, somewhat, but haven't come close to caring. Constant play of a hit could change that. Track ten, "Better Off Alone," warmth: early '90s mainstream r&bish slow pop may be her strength.

(Both the Natalie Cole and the Clint Black albums are entitled Love Songs. Unless AOL made a goof.)

on the other hand, advertising a concert as an evening of music by the jam and then standing by silently as your own fans trade tickets for hundreds if not thousands of dollars, and then playing exactly 10 jam songs as part of a 27-song set -- i'm talking to you, ex-teen-popper paul weller -- that is wrong and evil and i hope he woke up this morning feeling like the dick that he is. i didn't go because i hate that kind of nostalgia as much as weller told the fans at last night's show that he hates nostalgia. but i'm not the one going around trying to drum up interest in my shitty little u.s. tour by lying about what i'm going to play. may he never sell out a show again.

"Anyone from the first hearing of Amy belt out a lyric with such rich soulful intensity knows that this woman is not from this era. She is effortless in her delivery and I love your comment about “confident without any obnoxiousness.” It is this quality that makes her work hauntingly genuine. Good article Lauren. Be very grateful for this opportunity to review genius like Amy. She as well as you are being watched very closely by this fan. Take care."

The comment was written by someone named Valton Morgan.

"Every step you take... every move you make..."

I love American Idol but just can't stomach the auditions. For fun, here are my favorite contestants by season. This is based entirely on what they did on the show, not what they did afterwards:

1 - Kelly
2 - Didn't really care for anybody
3 - JPL
4 - Jessica Sierra (boo, America!), Carrie Underwood
5 - McPhee

Winehouse loves the dramatics and borderline creepiness of 1960s girl groups, of which "He Hit Me " is an extreme example. It's an influence you can hear in the tambourines and innocent snaps of her new album, Back to Black. "My favorite band of all time is probably the Shangri-La's," says Winehouse. "I love them because they were kids, and it's so emotional. Loads of sound effects, loads of lyrics like, 'My boyfriend's so fine and I'm gonna kill myself for him' and ‘I'm gonna die' and oh, I love it, I love it."

The Shangri-La's sound oppressed by love, bound by expectations, suicidal in their devotion. It's the difficult parts about them that informed Frank.

http://www.villagevoice.com/music/0704,linden,75600,22.html

2. Re: Michelle Branch - Any teenpop thread opinions on Ms. Branch? I, for one, have always found her inconsistent and have never been a big fan of any of her albums. But, she does have a great knack for kicking out some truly lovely singles (e.g. "All You Wanted", "Breathe", "Everywhere"). "Everywhere" is quite possibly my very favorite single of the decade to this point; it's in a cluster of about 5 or 6 songs that would have a reasonable claim to that title.

Carrie Underwood (American Idol = teenpop automatically, right?) scores the Number 5 single with "Before He Cheats" (shoulda been #1!) and scores as the #3 female vocalist and (incorrectly) as the #3 new artist. Kellie Pickler is the #7 new artist. And there've been plenty of country-folk trying out on American Idol this year too, so...

(Many Xhuxk thoughts on Taylor Swift over on rolling country.)

let's just end with the song of the day for December 6, 2006, Taylor Swift's "Tim McGraw." The subject matter's been run into the ground (memories of first love, coming of age), but her words are exceptionally precise and evocative - no line in particular, just the way the details pile up: little black dress, box hidden under her bed, etc. "September saw a month of tears/And thanking God that you weren't here/To see me like that." Very skillful, makes not-quite-in-the-vernacular phrasing ("saw a month of tears") feel normal in context (ditto for "the moon like a spotlight on the lake"). She's canny in balancing wistfulness and self-assertion. She hopes that when the boy thinks of Tim McGraw he thinks of her favorite song. She leaves a letter on his doorstep to make sure he does.

let's just end with the song of the day for December 19, 2006, Taylor Swift's "Tim McGraw," which I already did a couple of weeks ago, but the song keeps getting richer and richer the more I hear it. She uses the word "bittersweet," and she's not kidding. The first time she sings the chorus, "When you think Tim McGraw, I hope you think my favorite song," it means "I hope you have warm memories of me," but by song's end it also means "I hope I haunt you, fucker, the way you haunted me. Sincerely, your discarded girlfriend, Taylor." It doesn't abandon the first meaning, just layers another one on top.

But this is what I wrote on a comments thread in my livejournal:

Best new lyrics I heard all year, I think. They balance so perfectly that anything I say probably overstates the mood one way or another; but in the first chorus when she goes "When you think Tim McGraw, I hope you think my favorite song" it's simply sweet, but by the third chorus those words carry hurt and bitterness and a whole expanse of sadness, and a hint of aggression, as well (as if to say, "may that song haunt you," though that overstates it) - while retaining the sweetness.

let's just end with the song of the day for December 16, 2006, the Wreckers' "Stand Still, Look Pretty." "You might think it's easy being me/Just stand still, look pretty," sing a couple of gorgeous exteenpoppers. With looks like that they don't know if they have a right to their distress, but they're falling apart anyway. Interesting premise, which they don't take anywhere, so the lyrics feel whiny and empty. But with a quiet rasp in the voice and with the melody hanging around an irresolute "mi" note, the sound delivers some of the sadness that the words aren't up to.

(You can find my MySpace blog here.)

I read this as saying that with Mia Rose, even with Paris Hilton, the critique isn't of the music, but rather of the perceived inauthenticity. I definitely hear in arguments against Paris this assumption that the performance "will be at fault in other ways," even if the Critic can't point out what ways those will be. Obviously this differs from legitimate critiques, in that its merely the assumption of flaw, not the actual perception of it. So Mia Rose isn't who she says she is, so there must be something wrong with what's she doing. She isn't exactly who she purports to be (ie: the cute, young, charismatic girl unattached to corporation who inspired a following on YouTube) because she actually is attached to a corporation. So throwing that image into question assumes there is something wrong across the board. Even if you can't put your finger on it.

Obviously this isn't a justifaction of the critique, but rather an explanation of where it comes from. I'd still much rather hear someone speak directly to the music.