FEATURE: Too Much Too Young? Ensuring We Do Not Place Unreasonable Pressure on Our Best Young Artists

FEATURE:

 

Too Much Too Young?

IN THIS PHOTO: Billie Eilish/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Ensuring We Do Not Place Unreasonable Pressure on Our Best Young Artists 

__________

THERE is much to champion and celebrate as we immerse…

IN THIS PHOTO: Tom Grennan/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

ourselves in the waters of 2018. I have been scanning the horizon and seeing which artists will make big breaks this year. It is all very exciting as new talent emerges: the fact some legends and established artists are releasing material soon is another reason to be cheered! One of the most obvious trends coming through is the proliferation and augmentation of young artists. In my line of work – reviewing and interviewing musicians – I get to see a variety of awesome people do their thing. I connect with a lot of them and, through social media feeds, can track their progression and updates. One thing that strikes me, especially with young artists, is the pressure they feel. This applies, I guess to those in their teens and early-twenties – getting success and recognition early can be a good thing but, at the same time, cause a lot of anxiety and stress. I am excited great artists like Billie Eilish, Sigrid and Tom Grennan are getting a lot of love and buzz. Sigrid, especially, is getting some passionate feedback and attention. I am hopeful she will make big strides - but I wonder whether all the spotlight and glare is a bit too much. We want to see these artists flourish and fly but, with all the media attention and expectation – is that a lot to bare for someone so young?! Billie Eilish - the much-hyped U.S. teen - is school-age and, as such, has to balance musical duties with academia...

PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

She seems, on paper, a mature and level-headed girl – sullen at times with a definite edge and (authentic) attitude. I am pleased talent young female artists are being proffered – but they will only sustain and continue to record if they are given a modicum of space. Sigrid and Eilish are getting their faces everywhere: they are never too far from vacillating column-inches; journalists proclaiming them in terms few could call hyperbole. I guess, when an artist shows promise, journalists and radio stations are keen to get them out there and do all they can. That involves interviews and reviews; lots of new stories and praise. It is understandable, sure, but I wonder whether all that glare and expectation has a damaging effect. There are so few artists remaining and producing notable work years down the line. You get sustainable artists but, largely, bigged-up new musicians have a brief explosion; they release some great music but are replaced by someone new before too long. Maybe that is a sign of the music industry today – always wanting something new; too hectic to foster and protect artists – but I want to see the likes of Grennan, Sigrid and Eilish endure. I can throw in other names like Dua Lipa, Iamddb. and Shame. These artists vary in age – early-teens to twenties – but they are all (fairly) new on the block.

Ensuring these bright young stars are promoted, yet have the room to create and evolve years down the tracks is, to me, a crucial balance. Barely a week goes by without a new feature on Sigrid or Billie Eilish – they are not the only ones but are perfect examples I can throw in. There are a lot of blogs and websites out there who want to throw their kudos in; people are keen to play the songs (of these artists) and spread the word. That is understandable but I have a fear the constant glare and celebration is a bit too full-on. Nowadays, before a young artist has even released their debut album; so many quarters of the media have made predictions and put their name out there. Another side-effect is summoned: a slight fatigue among the public. I am keen to learn more about the ‘ones to watch’ artists but, even this early in the year, is there too much saturation and obsession?! One cannot fault the media too much: we are charged with promoting the best musicians, and so, it is understandable so many are hyping the same artists. Maybe a teenager like Billie Eilish can cope with that focus and exposure: I fear, by the time she gets around to recording a second album; the fascination will fade – regardless of how good it is; she has not even recorded her debut L.P., yet! Maybe, then, there is a two-point issue: getting too hot on an artist and, before long, losing interest; creating more anxiety and pressure on musicians who already have a lot to shoulder.

IN THIS PHOTO: Sigrid/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

I would suggest, after the explosion of end-of-year-polls and start-of-year predictions; give these artists a chance to bed-in and get their work done. What happens is, straight after the polls/predictions are out; the media clamber and race towards these artists – and they are a fixture of the music pages for weeks on end! Then, when the next/first single comes out; there is another tsunami of acclaim and expectation – the artist is already exhausted before they have released their album. The industry is not doing enough to preserve new talent and help develop young hopefuls. One might argue a (relative) lack of media oxygen will see a young artist overlooked and trampled. I take that point but it is possible to create a balance. My worry is we are being offered these tantalising artists but, by the summer; how many of us are going to be talking about them still?! The over-exposure means many will fall away; there is a feeling, among these acts, they need to release a lot of material to keep the love coming their way. Anxiety levels are rising in the music industry and, with each passing year, the problem edges towards the shores of ‘epidemic’. I feel a talent like Tom Grennan, for example, could create more freely and naturally if he is provided respite now. He is getting a lot of positive energy – and rightfully so! – but the public is keen for material that matches that expectation – allow the young man some room to create and consider! I am sure he loves all the support he is getting but can the finished results – the material itself – ever match the hype artists are given?!

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

I guess I am part of the problem: I am eager to support and highlight the great young artists in our midst. I am excited about Shame, Pale Waves and Yonaka; Sigrid, Billie Eilish and their ilk. They all have a busy year ahead but, rather than feature them in (endless) interviews, features (irony intended!) and articles – provide a pause and then, when new material is out, put the foot back on the gas! I want to see these artists get praise and attention this time next year: not be replaced by the next band of hopefuls (who will, you’d imagine, be forgotten by the end of the year!). There is a cyclical, factory-line process whereby fantastic young artists remain for a fairly short time. I know how good the proclaimed are: they are some of the best young musicians we have seen for many years. I wonder what all the circus and heat does to a young soul. Most artists are prepared for the realities of music – the crash-course of observation gives them an insight... – but all that demand and pressure adds to anxiety levels. We are being told modern artists are writing more about personal struggles and stigma; anxieties and pains – will all that media glare exacerbate that and, in the process, create health issues?! It is the issue of longevity and pace that concerns me most...

I want these newly-crowned artists reign and record years from now. I understand the media will not view them in such heady terms this time next year but, as the intensity builds; will the young stars of 2018 have the ammunition and energy to continue next year – and many years from now?! The solution is not obvious – what I do know is placing that amount of scrutiny, however positive, on a teenage musicians can be quite damaging. Maybe there is that danger of over-expectation: emboldening a musician so sharply means public perception and demands will be high. There are so many different aspects and burdens put onto the shoulders (of the new artists). I hope the media continue to back the finest young musicians coming through but, as we head into spring; afford them the distance to get down to recording and await their next move. From there, when they release a single/album, put the pressure back on a bit; then, when they progress later in the year, make another pitch. It is a more balanced and staggered-out promotion that eases some of the pressure and ensures there is consistent backing. We must not ignore and neglect these artists when we head into 2019 – desperate to embrace fresh wonder and forget about the talent being hailed this year. There is every possibility bright-eyed artists like Sigrid will have a stunning and prosperous 2018. We need to ensure incredible musicians are backed and cared-for; they are recognised and given due respect. More importantly; if the media ensures they allow them time to create – and not put too much pressure their way - that means the artists will have space and freedom to…

IN THIS PHOTO: Iamddb./PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

GROW and fly.      

FEATURE: Three-Minute Hero: Concision in the Age of Streaming

FEATURE:

 

Three-Minute Hero

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

Concision in the Age of Streaming  

__________

I remember a time when music was defined by…

IN THIS PHOTO: A promotional shot for The Beatles' album, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

a certain tightness and constriction. I have been revisiting The Beatles – not that I have ever stopped! – by looking, in forensic detail, at the running times of their material. In the first half of their career – up until Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, really – the songs usually came in at around three minutes or so. A lot of the song would be shorter: the need to get to the point and convey their message quick was what was required. The boys were a new sensation and people, even then, wanted a Pop song that delivered a punch of joy in under three minutes. There was no 'golden rule' - but that seemed to be the measure. They remain the band, I feel, define economy and potency. The Beatles could get their songs out and, in that short time, change the world! Other industries, like Motown, were expert at crafting and engineering stunning songs that did not overrun. There is a slight irony, I guess, in this piece: it is going to be quite a long feature. I am compelled because, now, musical competition and pressure are at an all-time high. (The industry is packed and impossible to conquer). There remains a difference of opinions regarding the best way get into the mindset and make an impact. I feel there are two camps in music right now: there are artists who, in any genre, can create a wonderful and memorable song - and ensure it does not top the three-minute marker.

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

It is hard to do but, I guess, is more common in certain genres. There are artists who feel they can only make a song gold and addictive if they allow a bit more time and space. We know, and have done for years, people are either drawn on a song or not within the first few seconds. With streaming services on the grow; one can skip to another track and hear any song they want. The attention-span is not limited, necessarily: people are spoilt for choice and, as such, musicians need to grab the imagination within the first thirty seconds. As such; one would think creating a short and lean song would be top of the priority list. If the average person demands a song win them within seconds: is it wise penning something that lasts maybe five or six minutes?! There are radio stations who allow a certain indulgence but, largely, they are limited in terms of the running-time. What I have found is the relative lack of ‘three-minute wonders’. We all know the sort: that epic song that starts with a bang; keeps you invested and then, before you know it, the thing has ended. The Beatles are the perfect example: there are plenty of other acts who were masterful regarding that type of thing. You’d imagine Punk and Pop artists would be the best examples of the taut and fabulous – those acts who can produce a banger without exceeding that three-minute barrier.

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

I am finding a lot of fantastic, nuanced songs that do not overrun but, conversely, the dominance of streaming has seen more and more artists stretch their ambitions. I review a lot of songs and albums and find the same thing coming up: artists are writing longer, more adventurous, numbers. It is easier and cheaper to record music now – no need to go into expensive studios and slave – so, as such, they are creating D.I.Y./cheaply-made songs that allow them a little more leniency. The age-old debate regarding quality and evolution – whether music is better now or back then – does hinge on how an ever-growing musical population deals with the competition. Some go for a longer song: the more music you give people; the better chance you have of rooting in the brain. Others, who prefer something concise, will stick with something shorter and succinct. I feel there are fewer three-minute (or less) tracks because radio stations are willing to provide more airtime. There was the rule, years ago, a song could not exceed a certain length – if it wanted to make it onto the popular stations of the day. Unless a modern artist pens something ridiculously long – you might be okay up to about six or seven minutes – then you can get played. I feel there are too many needlessly dragging tracks out; feeling the way to rack up the streaming figures and views is producing something long.

IN THIS PHOTO: Lorde (a modern Pop artist who, among her impressive catalogue, has produced a few sub-three-minute works of brilliance)/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Pop has even gone away from the short-sharp-shock approach and become more indulgent. A fascinating article published in Wired takes a more anatomical and analytical aspect to trends:

“How about massive amounts of data? Yes? Yes. Here is a giant database of music. From that, I can get songs from different years and look at the duration. Let's just plot this stuff. Since most years had many different songs, I have calculated the average song length (in seconds) and included error bars that represent the standard deviation of the distribution.

This seems to suggest that songs got longer even without new technology. Yes, there was still new technology. There was the extended play 45 record (EP). It still seems like that still would reduce the quality of the recording.

What about now? Since 1990, it seems that the average song length has sort of stabilized around 250 seconds (over 4 minutes). Maybe that's because humans prefer 4 minute songs. Clearly there is no technological limit to song length anymore, right?

So, did new technologies influence song length? I am going to say that it's plausible but not for certain. I still like the graphs though”.

Some of my favourite songs are three minutes or under. I have been listening to a lot of early White Stripes stuff – Blues jams that, for the first few albums, contained fairly short songs. In an age where vinyl was the only recourse; artists recorded songs that were around three minutes so they could squeeze their music onto a record. Those wanting a traditional two-side record had to consider the number of tracks they recorded and how long they were.

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

Radio stations were stricter, too. It is strange that, at a time when (it is said) attention spans are getting shorter; songs seem to be getting longer. The top one-hundred tracks on the iTunes chart are longer than a few years ago: chart-based music features a greater number of lengthy songs. That contrast between keeping the listener interested and making a huge impact is interesting. One can claim the average song has got longer because of the theme/genre. There are great Punk/Rock acts around now who deliver a fantastically physical track in two-three minutes. The Punk movement is not as influential as it was in the 1970s, and so, this type of artists are largely confined to peripheral vision. Pop songs have changed in terms of timbre and tonality. There are gleeful and unabashed sunshine-smashes but, as we become a more anxious people; songs are more reflective and personal – this demands a slower, sadder and lyrically-dense songwriting style. More songs are recorded in minor keys: the days of the major keys ruling the airwaves has passed. I love the fact musicians are honest in their music; genres and being spliced and radio stations are more open-minded and less rigorous. Whether it is a bygone Blur banger or a sizzling Sex Pistols song; a rowdy Ramones number or a Beatles belter – a certain degree of excitement and fun has been transplanted.

IN THIS PHOTO: The White Stripes (who, in their day, were no strangers to tight and to-the-point songs)/PHOTO CREDIT: Jamie Beeden/The Hell Gate/Corbis via Getty Images

I wrote about this a few days ago: wondering whether fun has escaped from the Pop charts. It seems, with a diminishing smile, modern music comes with a bit more brood and indulgence. This shift has seen some revelatory records and a lot of fantastic music. There are some sharp three-minute wonders...if you know where to look. A lot of modern Pop is uplifting and positive – even if the artists are adding in an extra chorus and a more verbose introduction. It seems we defy the rule regarding concentration: listeners are backing and streaming songs that exceed three minutes; the vocal does not come in until quite late in the proceedings – giving modern artists, established and new, greater confidence to push their music. I appreciate we get to hear musicians uninhibited and free: I would like to see more of the incredible songs I grew up with; those bands/artists that created gold without exceeding the three-minute point. Many argue a shorter song is less likely to connect with a modern listener who requires something more expansive. Perhaps, given the personal nature of songs; artists are unable to convey everything within strict barriers. It is an interesting debate, regardless of whether you prefer songs more concentrated or not – the days of the radio-friendly, three-minute gem is (pretty much) a thing of the past. It is an interesting point to consider and, with that in mind, I shall…

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

END it there.

FEATURE: Order, Order! Why Modern Music Would Benefit from Its Own Democratic Government

FEATURE:

 

Order, Order!

ALL PHOTOS (unless credited otherwise): Unsplash

Why Modern Music Would Benefit from Its Own Democratic Government

__________

THIS is an idea I tossed around last year...

I am looking out at our own government and, for want of a better expression, feel they are making too many mistakes – there are harsher words I could attribute to their brand of leadership! It has been a shambolic and chaotic past couple of years and, as we plunge into this year with a mixture of fear and anger; I have been thinking how music can exert more influence. It is not, as I have stated, potent enough to change society as quickly as we need. Another concept I have been playing with is a music charity/body that, not only brings old and new music in an organised and effective way – it helps raise money for charities, causes and musicians. This idea, then, feeds into that: a cabinet/structure in modern music where specific people are designated to parent various aspects of the industry. At the moment; a lot of power is exerted by few: record labels, streaming services and big-business seem to have more control and influence than anyone else. They need to have that dominance, I guess. Artists need representation so, if we were to undo the current order; that might lead to devastating disorder. I am not suggesting we rid music of all the oligarchs, huge labels and streaming services: simply, introduce new bodies, people and departments to music. Look at any government and there are various ministers for each department...

IN THIS PHOTO: The White House

We have someone in charge of health (apparently!) and education; a Foreign Secretary and local politicians. Music is a huge and unwieldy industry that is in need of organisation and a certain compartmentalisation. I am suggesting we assign our own ‘ministers’ to protect various parts of music. For one, I would like to see a Minister for Venues. It does not have to be a single human taking on all the responsibility: several people, in each part of the U.K., could take on the role. It would mean they’d be charged with studying venues and their profitability. They could launch funding initiatives and discuss ways to preserve them. We have ministers in Parliament who are assigned to the arts – it is hard to know what impact they are making on their music industry. I worry, in such a huge industry, there is a lack of organisation and discipline. I feel venues, and their frailty in certain regions, is something we need to tackle. The minister(s) could take on other roles but it would be a full-time role where they would travel around their area and, not only ensure the venues are protected and growing – they would think of initiatives and ideas to increase its status and survival chances. London, especially hot with venues, might have several appointed arbiter: smaller regions would only need the one (person). That is not the only area of music that could benefit from governance.

Mental-health and wellbeing are concerns that never leave my mind. I worry artists and music personnel are suffering and having too much pressure put on them. The debt placed on our health service, because of stress and psychological issues, is profound. It is that ‘silent demon’ that stalks and bites – something difficult to control and temporise. I feel, because there is a lot of mental-health concerns in music; we should have a department that looks after that side of things. It would be a combination of medical professionals – G.P.s and psychiatrists – alongside councillors and advisors. Not only would they pitch for funding – to ensure we can provide better care for artists – but raise awareness and provide direct support. Whilst treatment and one-on-one discussion are needed: working with other departments to reduce the epidemic of mental-health, and its nefarious tongue, is paramount! I feel this government could operate through bicameralism: having one ‘government’ in the U.K. and another in the U.S., maybe? There would be local representatives, which I will come to, but it would not be localised and entirely run in Britain. Like our own government; I feel having people in charge of education and international affairs is important. In terms of ‘education’; it would be a combination of pushing music back onto the syllabus; ensuring there is a more visible musical programme on our curriculum. We could visit schools and ensure students are being taught music as part of their daily education – not just having access to these courses through higher education.

Putting music back into schools is vital. Funding could be raised and discussions held with our own Government. We could affect change so that music education is not reserved to those who can afford it – and limited to colleges and universities. There are music syllabuses in schools but it is not as prolific and widespread as it once was. Education involves, as I will show, integrating with other departments – raising awareness of big issues affecting the industry. From a simple audio standpoint; ensuring older music is preserved and brought to new negotiations is important. Someone could look after streaming services and look at how older and new artists are represented there. Maybe, they could look at various trends in music and predict where the industry is heading. There is a lot we can teach musicians and listeners alike; maybe having archivist that would look at bygone music and ensure its potency and legacy remains. Alongside various educational considerations is a moral and conscientious bent. There is a lot of sexism and racism in the industry - and a need to stem it. Not only do many in music need education and informing – what they are doing wrong and how we can improve – but the industry as a whole needs to change the way it views female artists and minorities. Raising schemes and discussing reorganisation would be good. That might be ways of having more female artists in headliner spots; ensuring there is less sexualisation and discrimination; ensuring, too, there is parity in the business!

The same goes for minority musicians: making sure they are not overlooked and given the same opportunities at award ceremonies, in the industry and at festivals. Having a Minister for Festivals, like (a) venues representative, could foster and support new festivals: ensure existing ones run smoothly and are provided as much funding and promotion is provided. This would be a smaller role but one that could link with education, too, and raise issues surrounding festivals – drugs deaths and weather-related issues. It is a wide spectrum (education) but a role that definitely needs to be created. I have mentioned, already, local representative and how they could change music – and link with the Education representatives. Each town/city has a music industry. From gigs and promotion through to educating and encouraging new musicians in that area – so much good work that could be done. It might sound like a lot of work but there is a need for structure and progression. In terms of foreign links; I mentioned how the U.S. could adopt a similar approach. A musical Foreign Secretary(ies) could build bridges with other nations: promoting British music and, in terms of other artists and potential touring acts; liaise with them and – with the support of venues – arrange performances. British music is well-known around the world but a lot of our unsigned/new artists are restricted to the U.K. An envoy/cultural attaché would provide the link between nations: bring stunning international sounds to our shores.

The idea for any (proposed) government body would be those international links. I would like to see British representation in London, Manchester; Bristol, Brighton and Glasgow. There would be bases in each city and concentration here – spreading out the departments and ministers/secretaries so everything is not focused in London. The same goes for America: New York and L.A. (maybe two bases in each); Nashville and Austin would be great locations – maybe branching into Seattle and Detroit, too. I want Australia involved too; have bases in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane; Perth, too. Not only would we concentrate on live and recorded music: T.V. and radio would have representation, too. They are crucial outlets for music (radio especially) so promoting stations and creating easy links between radio/T.V. producers is key. Working with the biggest radio stations; events could be created to promote their great work; linking them with other stations around the world – ensuring we augment our finest T.V. and radio brands. For artists; there is always that desire to get their music heard and played. It can be hard finding an audience and willing ear! Having designated people working with musicians to forge ties – and get their material heard – is another important point. In addition to all these departments/points must come business and social aspects.

By ‘business’; I mean focusing on music business and finance: from record labels/deals through to the way artists are paid; trade and ties with international sources and contracts. Ensuring there is finance available, as I will finish up with, is crucial. That can be anything from artists being paid on streaming services; ensuring there is capital going into venues and festivals – looking at the wages of radio and T.V. talent (ensuring there is an attempt at parity). One of the other big departments – there will be lots of smaller chambers – is the social side of things. Again; this is quite broad. Someone will be employed to create greater social links and collaboration between artists. Not only would we look to create more social gatherings, events and opportunities: looking at social media, and the way it is run, is pressing. Maybe creating a bespoke site that integrates social media and something musically bespoke. It means a musician/fan is not online longer than they need to be. A site would produce information, useful tools and software; options that allow fans to connect with a great range of music – artists the chance to bond with others and find chances in the industry. That is, pretty much, the outline of the proposal – other departments, facets and details would come in if the idea became reality.

I feel there is a real need for something huge and committed that deals with every part of music. The considerations would be, I guess: how is integrates and communications with the Government; how it will be funded and sustained; whether its ‘core’ – where it is all run from – would be a physical base or online presence. It would be a separate entity from our Government. The music cabinet – not sure what it is called yet! – would try and work with the Culture Secretary and Prime Minister at various points. It is prudent, when implementing changes to the music industry, there is conferencing with Downing Street. So we do not contradict the Government – or clash with them; weaken the work being carried out – there would be conversation and cooperation. This project/government would not be part of our elected. There would be mutual understanding - but the reason for launching this is to do work our Government are not! Making it all a fiscal reality is the biggest challenge. One hopes the government would designate a certain budget for this movement – as we are not undermining them; merely adding support and taking on great responsibility – and the desire to get more involved with music (in all genres and settings) should be reason enough to reap the reward. Like streaming sites and commercial stations; a lot of the funding would come from sponsors and big businesses.

That is not to say (this government) would be corporate shills and money-grabbing types: we would work with them and ensure our ethics and motives are pure. I am looking at corporations like Samsung, Google and Microsoft – maybe Amazon and Facebook. In exchange for a yearly stipend – and subsiding – there would be chances for brand promotion, advertising and commercial expansion. The details are slight at the moment but it would not see banners and slogans painted on cars (metaphorically-speaking): there would be a contract drawn that meant musicians, fans and the businesses themselves would all benefit…without anyone having to sell their soul. That may seem impossible but getting that capital from the big businesses ensures the music government can survive, expand and make effective changes. In regards the physical manifestation of the initiative – many wonder what shape it will take. We cannot, unfortunately, build anything as grand and commodious as the Houses of Parliament. It would be a split between online visibility and physical presence. The latter is most important: making sure there are actual bases for the proposal/government. (They would be situated in the cities I mentioned earlier). It would start as offices but, as the idea grew; more would spring up and we could be more ambitious with size/locations...

I am keen, even though it is a music-based enterprise, to link closely with film and T.V. Not only is it important to get high-profile actors and figures involved; there is a visual aspect to music that has existed for decades. Putting more money into music videos means we can create stunningly imaginative works – ensure new artists have more money to create something terrific. Linking with actors means there is a communication channel between artists/directors and talent. It would open up new chances and horizons. I am interested seeing whether there is the possibility of a music show/channel; something that can find backing/funding from a big service like Netflix or Amazon. It is not only personalities from music and film I am keen to act as ambassadors of this government. Incredible supporters of music like Barack Obama – not the first name you might have considered! – could lend their voice and, with services like Spotify, take music to new lands – and help make real changes in the industry. It is all ideas and propositions at the moment but I feel, in time, the only way we can affect genuine shifts in music – including getting more working-class musicians into the mainstream; more working-class journalists at big papers – is to work together and form something productive.

IN THIS PHOTO: Former U.S. President, Barack Obama

I know something good could happen and, if it started out as a social media-based poll – how many would object to such a government? It would work a lot more effectively and democratically than our own and, as finances come in and changes are made; it could push into other areas of society and make a difference. That is not to say the world will be changed: one cannot discount the possibility something big could come about! It is about starting strong and ensuring the flame is not extinguished. It might take years before something real and visible comes into the world: money will need to be found and serious organisation undertaken. The music industry is a wonderful thing and is inspiring countless artists to add their voice to it. The swell and diversity of the industry, coupled with problems and conflicts, means something needs to be done. There are great charities, bodies and people who help guide and shape music but, the larger the industry becomes; the more hands required. A bespoke musical government would alleviate some of the pressure and recruit musicians, professional and musical fans into the government – a democratic and eclectic body. If music, and all its layers and levels can have that consistent and multi-department care; I feel a stronger and more equal industry can come about. We could poll the masses (to get feedback) and I am confident, when the ballots close, the result will be something…

IN THIS PHOTO: A shot of L.A., U.S.A.

EVERYONE can agree on.

FEATURE: Spotlight: Jade Bird

FEATURE:

 

Spotlight

Jade Bird

__________

I will put some boys/bands into this feature…

soon enough but, right now, a sensational female artist comes to my heart - one who has enjoyed a flow of upward trending. I have been reading interviews Jade Bird has conducted recently – including one with the BBC – and she has a real charm and accessibility that leaves ego at the door and opens its arms. The twenty-year-old, it seems, is rapturous, (very) funny company – friends tell her, if music does not work out, she can become a comic! It might seem, when reading these features, Bird does not take things seriously; she prefers fun as opposed to personal revelation and insight...you would be wrong. There is a warmth and a captivating aura that emanates from her but, balancing the humour, is an honest artist keen to explain her process. Her voice has been compared to Patti Smith and, usually, such name-dropping is exaggerated and lazy. In the case of Jade Bird; that honorific is justified and well-founded. It is hard to categorise and label her music: critics have tried and, rather restrictively, labelled her as a 'Country' artist. One hears Punk and Alternative sounds in her music; one gets impressions of early-2000s Pop – that is especially true on new single, Lottery. The young talent was going through writer’s block prior to laying the song down; trying alcohol and various other ‘cures’ to get her spark back. The chorus came to her and, with lottery-based metaphors in her head; the rest poured out of her. The young songwriter knew she had a hit and, whatever the reason for the revelation was, the brief writer’s block passed – she also read a series of band lyrics in order to get her songwriter-mind back in gear.

Bird was raised in a family that moved countries and had a military background – she was especially inspired by the strong women in her family (her mum and grandmother, especially). Bird’s rise to prominence started, like many, with pub gigs and open mic. nights. These were harsh and not instantly profitable. It was a valuable experience but, in an area of Wales that did not have a huge music scene; chances to perform bigger-scale gigs were hard to come by – to audiences who were not always receptive. The break came when she was offered a place at the Brit School. Bird settled into the place but would balance school work with gigs. It was a tough thing to cope with and there was a time when she made a confession to her mum: how was she going to manage and progress in music. After recorded songs in a friend’s bathroom – the acoustics, as she claims, were incredible – she cut a demo for her management and, without pause, she was shipped to Woodstock to record an E.P. (Something American) with Bat for Lashes’ producer, Simon Felice. Glassnote signed the singer and, with her career on the ascendancy; she was in a fertile and inspired mood. Bird, herself, claims to have notebooks filled with songs and ideas - hundreds, in fact! She is part of a Glassnotes stable that includes Chvrches, Phoenix and Childish Gambino: hardly minor names you are unlikely to have heard of - just the label to encourage Bird to foster those sketches and imaginative writings.

Her debut E.P. was well-received and, with songs like Cathedral in her arsenal; she was starting to prick the ears of some important sources. The track, seemingly, fell out of nowhere: the idea of jilting someone at the altar, wearing a big white dress, seemed like a great idea. The track, in a way, shares D.N.A. with Bat for Lashes’ concept album, The Bride. Bird adds her own dynamic and voice to a vivid and beautifully realised song that proves any past droughts are gone and buried. A spot on BBC’s Sound of 2018 is only the start of things: Bird has appeared on Stephen Colbert’s U.S. chat-show; she has big gigs coming up and, on Lottery; there is a new sense of style and purpose coming through. As Jade Bird noted when speaking with BBC: Lottery is the only song, more-or-less, on Spotify’s New Music Friday that featured real drums. Most of their recommendations are Electro/Pop artists: their songs tend to provide processed beats. That difference and originality is something Bird should be proud of. There are a lot of promising young female songwriters emerging; each with their own style and angle. I feel she has something the competition does not provide: a personality that seduced journalists and emanates from every note. You can hear Bird and that big smile; a curious mind and debating heart that wants her music to connect with every listener. All of these components – and the immense talent she possesses – means the on-the-rise songwriter is going to be…

ONE of 2018’s biggest propositions.

________

Follow Jade Bird

Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/JadeBirdMusic/

Spotify:

https://open.spotify.com/artist/7D8LuVnlyu91ndcPe70j7S

Twitter:

https://twitter.com/JadeBirdMusic

Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/jadebirdmusic

YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2kDNZOmeD5rsXb4MctB4Dw

SoundCloud:

https://soundcloud.com/jadebird67

________

PHOTO CREDITS: Getty Images/Jade Bird/BBC

FEATURE: A Dangerous Allure: How Opioid Overdependence Is Taking a Huge Toll on Music

FEATURE:

 

A Dangerous Allure

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

How Opioid Overdependence Is Taking a Huge Toll on Music

__________

I wanted to talk about other subjects this weekend…

PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

that included the power of lyrics and how they can comfort us in challenging times; some of the great changes I anticipate in the music industry; an act I am especially excited about right now – a few other things thrown in. Today, right now, I am angered somewhat. Tom Petty died last year and, whilst it is tragic and heartbreaking; something more alarming comes to mind: the fact he died of an accidental drug overdose. His family are trying to raise awareness of a problem in the U.S.: how opioids and painkiller addiction is taking lives. It is something I am seeing too much in the music industry. Prince, in 2016, died of an accidental opioid overdose: the same reason Tom Petty was taken from us. The death of The Cranberries’ lead Dolores O’Riordan took everyone by surprise recently – the world waits to discover why she died so suddenly. She spoke about health issues and how she had to cancel gigs (in the past) because of pain – she was wielding a guitar on stage and, through overuse and exertion; she had to take a break. The medicinal solution to this issue is opioids and painkillers. It is not exclusive to the U.S., as we can see. One cannot assume O’Riordan died due to an overdose - but there is the possibility that is the case. She was in London to record material and was excited by the prospect...

IN THIS PHOTO: Tom Petty/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Although she battled mental-health issues; it would be rash to think that contributed to her death – especially, given the reason she was in the U.K. and the fact she seemed in a positive frame of mind. The Irish musician spent years with a heavy guitar and was an active performer. It was inevitable there would be certain repercussions and effects from that lifestyle. Doctors, I guess, have to prescribe the medication they feel will best treat the ailment. The same is true of Petty: he was suffering various conditions and was very ill before he accidentally overdosed. Petty suffered a massive cardiac arrest and had painkillers and anti-depressants in his system. His wife and daughter, Dana and Adria, revealed Petty suffered mobility issues. He had movement issue as a result of fractured hip but continued to tour – determined not to let his fans down. He performed as much as he could and, the more he got out on the road, the worse the pain became. His death was not a way out of that cycle: he was upping his intake to suppress the pain; unaware of the toxicity and lethal effects. Maybe we can apportion some blame to the music industry itself: it is putting too much demand on artists and, for those who have been in the industry for a long time; they are more susceptible to injury and serious damage.

IN THIS PHOTO: Lil Peep/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Lil Peep, a U.S. rapper, died last year because of a fentanyl and Xanax overdose. Perhaps the reason for his death was different to that of Petty – maybe it was a recreational thing; seen as the ‘done thing’ in the Rap community – but it has claimed a life. I refute that assumption. I think the rapper had emotional pains and anxieties: that drug took the edge off and, as his pain worsened, his dependency increased. It was a senseless loss of someone barely out of their teens. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has highlighted the epidemic: in the U.S., over 42,000 people were killed by opioids in 2016 – this is more than any other year on record. Petty’s death was a shock; Lil Peep’s passing was tragic. Every death associated with opioid overuse raises alarms and adds to the tally. Prince was, unfortunately, part of the 42,000 people who were killed by opioids in 2016. He overdosed on fentanyl and, having incurred medical issues because of his performing lifestyle and susceptibilities, paid a huge price. One does not know – as he died at his Paisley Park home – whether he was in extreme pain and needed to eradicate it; maybe he was hooked on a cycle of overuse as a preventive measure. Doctors do offer warnings - but should we be looking at the addictive nature of these drugs?

IMAGE CREDIT: Heroin.net

I cannot ethically claim Dolores O’Riordan is the latest casualty – it is merely a suggestion – but we are seeing more and more musicians either taken by opioids or suffering because of them. Tom Petty has grandchildren - he did not want to tour forever. He knew that lifestyle was unsuitable for someone in their 60s. He was a consummate performer who put his all into every performance, though. The needs to please every fan and give his all, naturally, affected his health and physical wellbeing. He was physically unable to bear that pain without the assistance of prescription medication. The more he was demanded; the greater the need to see Petty take to the stage – the more physically demanding his life became. He may not have been aware of the number of opioids he was taking: it may have seemed logical to exceed the dose, so long as he did not go to extremes – maybe not thinking what the cumulative, long-term effects would be. You can say the same in the case of Prince: in order to record and mobilise his music; the icon needed to numb the pain and ensure he was able to perform. It is tragic when one considered these deaths were accidental. The musicians themselves were not ignorant: proper warnings had not been put out; they were unaware of the addictiveness of the painkillers and what effect it would have.

IN THIS PHOTO: Prince/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Maybe Petty and Prince took a few too many pills. They did so not to self-destruct and end their lives: they were in pain and that they saw it as a way of getting rid of that. Maybe that is a semantic obfuscation: neither artist was suicidal. I am not sure about Lil Peep - but I assume he was not trying to end his life. He was in pain, psychologically, and felt it was the best way to take the edge off things. The problem of opioid overuse is acute in the U.S. Doctors are prescribing it to patients and, without underlining how serious the problem at hand is – how many are dying because of overdosing – they will continue to dispense them without considering the ramifications. In some corners of music; there is a rather casual and disturbing ignorance regarding drugs and recreational use. Artists like Lil Pump have boasted about their opioid use and see it as a minor thing – his contemporary Lil Peep did not have the same brazen and foolish approach to the drug. The U.K. is seeing cases of artists getting hooked on opioids; some overdoing and others seeing it as the only recourse to crippling pain. Rather than retire from music and rehabilitate: they are being prescribed these drugs and, without thinking, popping them to ease the pain. From that, we can ask two questions...

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

The first revolves around the physical demands of music and whether, when an artist starts feeling the pain of constant touring, they need to take time out and not push on. That might be a battle against stubbornness - but the results of ignoring the warning signs are claiming the lives of wonderful artists. It might hurt them in the short-term (in financial terms) but we need to promote the message that this is okay. Being healthy and safe is more important than doing irrevocable damage to yourself. Fans might be disappointed but that is the compromise that needs to be taken. It is understandable being torn between that desire to preserve self and satisfy the fans’ demands. We need to get a message out to musicians that, if they feel pain and are prescribed opioids; they need to rest and not take more than the stated dose. It seems there is an addictive quality to some of the prescribed medications – this provokes a question. Should we look at drugs like fentanyl and seek to limit their use? Maybe another drug would be a wiser option? I am not going as far to say physical therapy would be an effective alternative - one cannot get the same benefits from homoeopathic measures and simple rest. There is a reason why people are prescribed painkillers. If there were a few deaths here and there; we could let it lie and not get too affronted: the fact thousands are being lost to opioids means we can no longer ignore the pandemic!

At the very least; there needs to be campaigns and discussions that highlight the figures and human toll. It is not scaremongering or radicalisation: merely a way of providing disclosure and facts. I wonder whether artists like Tom Petty, Prince and Lil Peep – and O’Riordan, perhaps – could have lived (a lot longer, at least) were it not for the opioids they were prescribed. It is a complicated issue and one that is not black-and-white. The music industry is open to all artists and, if you are a legendary artist of many years’ standing; the road and stage are open and available, still. The result of the years in music – and the physical strain it places on an artist - means they are turning to painkillers simply so they can perform to their fans. I am worried the industry is not doing enough to dissuade artists to avoid needlessly pushing themselves and, if they cannot continue due to pain; ending their careers before they needlessly overdose. It may be impossible but we cannot sit back as musicians are taken from us. It is clear there is an issue to be tackled. The sooner affirmative action is taken; the more lives we can save…

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

IN the future.    

FEATURE: Infamy as Child: Social Revolution and Sexual Evolution in Music

FEATURE:

 

Infamy as Child

IN THIS PHOTO: SZA/PHOTO CREDIT: Rex

Social Revolution and Sexual Evolution in Music

__________

I hope we have got to the point where rote…

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

sexual encounters have a diminished role in music. Brash sexualisation is not an optimal position for today's music: at a time where morals are being questioned and high-profile celebrities are being examined, accused and punished – can we expect some of music’s disgraced hang-ups to exist and influence?! I have been thinking about the past year in society and how we have got to where we are. Actors, directors and various male figures have been brought to the fore: accused of sexual indiscretion and stepping over the line. There have been arguments about where the line is: what constitutes consent and how do you define ‘acceptable’ physical contact? The answer is a lot simpler than the argument suggests: any form of unwanted contact is unacceptable. The controversy around the #MeToo movement and the furore surrounding Aziz Ansari. The comedian has divided opinion and blurred lines regarding sexual consent and truth.

Sarah Solemani, in The Guardian, added her voices to the debate:

“Let’s get real about what a social movement actually is. It does not come organised, strategised, streamlined and clean. It does not come neatly presented by experienced journalists and authorised by legal ombudsmen. It’s messy. It’s chaotic. It ebbs and flows and expands and retracts because it’s a human phenomenon. It takes place in the streets and in unofficial publications, and is propelled, most crucially, by a collective imagination. And historically, the imagination of a movement is led by the young. This is where we are now: the hard bit, the exciting bit, the bit that counts”.

IN THIS PHOTO: Aziz Ansari/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

There has been a lot of debate around this case: whether he is in the wrong and why the backlash against him is unjustified. It is the latest case study in a growing narrative that raises questions and calls for greater discussion. I am not going to throw my hat into the ring and offer an opinion regarding Ansari: I wonder whether the ongoing story will impact music and change the way we discuss sex and physicality. I will bring in another article from The Guardian – where they look at the way music has changed since the Robin Thicke/Blurred Lines ‘regency’ of 2013. The questionable suggestions and seedy mantras seemed, to the naïve and mindless Pop fans, like ordinary words that held no real meaning. To those listening clearly – including the estate of Marvin Gaye; they successfully sued the song’s writers over copyright infringement and intellectual theft - there was something very wrong working under the skin. The article added another dimension to my thought’s train. I have noticed a shift: a move from the overtly sexual to the more tempered and safe brand of sexuality. I have written about misogyny in music - and whether sexual equality is possible.

IN THIS PHOTO: Christina Aguilera/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

I was concerned, last year, that we would enter this year seeing a rise in the salacious and undisciplined approach to sex in music. Whether it is the Dirrty-era Christina Aguilera; images of a young Britney Spears cavorting in a school uniform (…Baby One More Time); the sexual liberation of Beyoncé on her eponymous album – can we support that kind of imagery and vocabulary given what is happening around us?! Beyoncé’s brand of self-expression and sexual freedom is different to the somewhat ill-advised and overly-explicit form of Pop we saw from Aguilera and Spears. You can say, in each case, there was no harm done and it was an innocent bit of fun. The artists were trying to sell records and, during that time, we did not have the same sort of concern and problems arising. None of those songs has corrupted society and set the course of sexual equality and consent back: looking at these songs, however, and one gets a rather bitter taste in the mouth. I am one who feels there is a thin line between sexual expression and going ‘too far’. Certain artists (like Beyoncé) are showing their femininity and taking pride in their sexuality. It is hard to say whether other artists are exploiting their bodies for commercial gain – or they are presenting their own version of self-confidence and emancipation.

IN THIS PHOTO: Dua Lipa/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

It is not only reserved to female artists: male musicians have muddied the waters and, in certain genres (Rap and Hip-Hop especially), we continue to see an alarming amount of explicit images – in music videos – and profane songs. I feel we have cleaned up a lot over the past few years. Modern Pop singers, male and female, are talking about sex in different ways. We still see a few scantily-clad and teasing videos/songs – new artists like Dua Lipa are showing their femininity and discussing sex in a very open way – but there are fewer artists that raise eyebrows. I think the unseemly case of Robin Thicke helped move Pop/music away from a very bad place: the nature of consent was questioned and we have tightened morals, to an extent. I am still seeing too much sexism and over-sexualised content in some areas of music: for the most part, changes are being made and, with the spotlight and augmentation of new female artists; there is hope greater parity and understanding will come into music this year. The Guardian article I read raised interesting points:

“…But pop’s portrayals of sexuality have been complicated – and muted – by an unusually eventful half-decade. Intimacy has been corrupted by technology and anxiety. Female artists are redefining sexuality. Would-be seducers must acknowledge conversations about consent and gender politics. Provocateurs who aren’t progressive are soon rumbled. R&B is grappling with what pleasure looks like when black bodies are under siege from police brutality and cultural fetishisation. And LGBTQ listeners are demanding more than rote heterosexual hook-ups. This immediacy is nothing new – pop has always either shaped or reflected the social and sexual mores of its era – but the outcomes are”.

The game is changing – it NEEDS to change – and music cannot commercialise male artists who take a very chauvinistic and unwise attitude to sex – thinking they can touch a woman because their ego and status are huge. As I said; I am not going to put my boots on and wade into the waters of the #MeToo campaign. There are debates and arguments from both sides; revelations and accusations are coming through – the shockwaves and impact from women speaking up has not only reverberated in film/T.V. Music is accountable and, whilst not as culpable in terms of sexual indiscretion; artists cannot conceivably return to the manufactured sexuality we saw in the 1990s and early part of the last decade. There is manufactured sexuality from both genders: it is more potent and prolific in female acts; perpetrated and controlled, to an extent, by male-run labels and directors. There are still lurid and softcore videos/songs in music but far fewer than recent years. What I am noticing is how relationships and the nature of sex is changing. Modern artists like Rina Sawayama are talking about other areas of life: social anxiety and the effects of the Internet; dealing with more pressing and personal viewpoints. Transcending from sexual promiscuity and near-the-bone artists: today, artists, female and male, are talking about matriarchy, empowerment and morals.

IN THIS PHOTO: Beyoncé/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Beyoncé’s Lemonade pointed the finger at a cheating spouse (although she has claimed, in some sources, it was not about Jay-Z’s infidelity); young up-comers like SZA and Cardi B are addressing other aspects of their social life. Rather than talk about getting laid and going out to meet a guy – they are talking about Netflix-and-chill preferences and cosying up for the night. That might be a rather binary and simplified conclusion: there are plenty of artists who still talk about the club and riding-until-they-drop; male artists who are materialistic, obsessive and porn-y. Female artists are still exploring sex but employing it in different ways. Whether an alleviation of stress; a cessation (of sex) due to anxiety and the pressures of music – more ‘modern’ influences are coming into play. Artists like Sawayama are talking about social media, technology and a night in with her phone – using metaphors and double-meaning to portray something sexual through electronic communication. Black artists, including modern R&B/Pop artists, are challenging the racism in their country. With Obama out and Trump in; there is great repression and the need to speak out. Racial aggression and (those of colour) being overlooked means a lot of black artists are talking about the fight ahead; battling the oppressive government and their ignorance: sex still plays a part but it is taking a back-seat to other concerns.

IN THIS PHOTO: Julia Michaels/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

At a time where we are aware of L.G.B.T.Q. issues and cultures; sex and music are evolving and stepping away from the less developed and educated days. A lot of modern Pop/R&B songs are being penned by L.G.B.T.Q. writers: with that, listeners are being informed of the spectrum of sexuality; the complexities inherent in modern society – learning more about emotional issues rather than sexual desires. Maybe the Internet has made us more anxious and anti-social; we are staying in more and slavishly deferring to the control of our devices and tablets. Modern female artists like Sigrid, Billie Eilish; (even Dua Lipa) SZA, Kelela and Julia Michaels – as was outlined in The Guardian’s piece – are not letting men speak for women; they are aware of their sexuality but are more concerned with solidarity and depth. These artists do not flash their bodies and see themselves as inferior and the hunted: they are empowered and intelligent women who enjoy relationships and sex but are using their platform to talk about the struggle of their gender and what changes need to be made. Some might look at this assumption and think the music scene has gone tame. Sexual explicitness was once the cornerstone of Rock: listen to bands like Led Zeppelin and one blushes through a large section of their back-catalogue. Music took a while to evolve and look inside itself but, because of recent developments; the need to change and proffer artists with greater wisdom and conscientiousness is evident.

IN THIS PHOTO: Led Zeppelin/PHOTO CREDIT: Rex

We have seen sexual shifts in music over the past couple of decades. From the bold and forward bands like TLC and En Vogue – who were modest in their fashion but talked about sex in an open way; ensuring they were safe and not allowing the man to dominate – to the little-left-to-the-imagination breed that includes Britney Spears and Rihanna (years apart but similar ideals)…we have come to a point where modernisation, greater understanding and a more complex, mature attitude to sex has defined the music we hear. It does not mean we have lost libido and are too scared to talk about one-night stands and the thrill of the chase: the language is smarter and prurient; the broadness of the sexual spectrum has added colour and conversation; technology and the changing nature of modern relationships means things, to an extent, are more digital and less physical. The greatest change we have seen – and evolution that will happen this year – is a greater sexual equality and artists, mainly male, thinking twice about how they address women and consent in music. One cannot allow grabby hands are ego-boosted artists the freedom to talk about sex in a very obnoxious and troubling way. We are seeing a social revolution occur where male stars are no longer immune from professional castration and exsanguination.

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

I have brought other voices into my piece because they are noticing what I am: music is discussing sex and relationships differently to years past. There is a lot of debate around various accusations where one draws the line: who is to be believed and how far is ‘too far’. Whilst there are some clear-cut culpable: there are a lot of others making the news where the reality is far from clear-cut. This obfuscation needs to be tackled but, for music, artists are seeing what is happening and thinking about what they write – lest they be subject to recrimination and accusations. This is a good thing and, the more we tackle loose morals and questionable sexual motives; the sooner we can create genuine change. The debate around sex and unwelcomed notoriety in the entertainment industry impinged on the music scene: 2018 is going to be a year where we will see some great steps take place. The more conscious musicians are to what is happening around them…

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

THE richer the music scene will become.    

FEATURE: Life on Mars? Will We Ever See Another Icon Like David Bowie?

FEATURE:

 

Life on Mars?

ALL PHOTOS (unless stated otherwise): Getty Images

Will We Ever See Another Icon Like David Bowie?

__________

IT might not seem the timeliest of questions…

PHOTO CREDIT: Terry O'Neill/Getty Images

but David Bowie’s name is never too far from those who adore music. A couple of weeks ago, we had a bittersweet remembrance: on the 8th (January), we marked two years since Blackstar was released; two days later; we had to remember the two-year anniversary of Bowie’s death. In a distant world full of alienation (in our alien nation); there is an odd chill and loss following Bowie’s death. It is not as though we were all expecting something biblical back in 2016. Many could argue Bowie’s best days were past him: 2013’s The Next Day was a well-received album but it has been a while since a new Bowie album bowled critics over. His 2000s/2010s period is not considered his finest, I guess. Blackstar, however, changed the game. It was an extraordinary album (I should stop using the past-tense) that took everyone by surprise. We only had two days to absorb the album before Bowie’s death – a double-blow that people are still reeling from. 2016’s Blackstar was the last revelation and revolution from the wheel re-inventing songwriter. Although he was ailing and not long for the world; Bowie addresses death and vulnerability unlike any time in his career. It is one of the most experimental and ambitious records of his late-career cannon. Jazz horns and incredible sweep; epic songs that are among the most scintillating and stunning he has ever recorded. The fact he managed to record an album whilst suffering from cancer is amazing in itself.

The master did not want to let the illness to define him and rob his spirit! Of course, mortality and the afterlife were investigated by Bowie. In some numbers; he envisaged himself looking down from Heaven (or space) and viewing the world from the other side. It is heartbreaking to think we will not see another David Bowie album: a fresh incarnation that addresses a new phase in life. One of the biggest questions, following his death, is whether he can ever be replaced. Many see Bowie as a true original: a unique nebula that has changed music and popular culture but, in the manner he did it; meant there was nobody else who could match him. I am not saying we need a like-for-like Bowie clone: merely someone with the same endeavour, stylistic intelligence and evolutionary process I have chosen David Bowie because that evolution is not limited to the music: look at the fashion and ‘look’ of Bowie and here is a man who was always thinking about the next stage. Not only was the musician a talented actor but he was a painter and bit of a visionary. In early interviews; he forecast the effects the Internet would have on our lives; how it would change communications and take a much bigger role in society. Bowie’s meeting with Lindsay Kemp – who would have a big impact on Kate Bush’s life – introduced him to dance, theatre and the avant-garde.

This theatrical reawakening connected with a young man looking to forge a persona. It wasn’t until 1971’s Hunky Dory when we started to see the inventive and persona-led side of Bowie come through. His music was innovative before that – it was this album where we began to see sweeping Pop and that mix of low and highbrow. Sexuality, art and the kitsch were investigated through the album. Changes is, perhaps, the most autobiographical cut on the record: a song where strange and wonderful artistic revelations were blossoming inside the musician. Songs such as Life on Mars? and Queen Bitch opened eyes to a man who was unlike anything out there. He was, ironically, ‘out-there’ and on his own plain. 1972’s The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars is about a fictional androgynous, bisexual Rockstar who acts as a messenger for extra-terrestrial being. The character of ‘Ziggy’ is part-Iggy Pop and bits of British Rock ‘n’ Roll singer, Vince Taylor. Bowie wanted to create a character who was like an alien: someone who had dropped from Mars and was settling on Earth for the first time. The androgynous clothing and looks; the outrageous fashions and bold moves – another step forward and change from David Bowie. There has been changes and shifts prior to Hunky Dory: this creative period was the most experimental and radical of the songwriter’s career.

Glam-Rock and pantomime fed into; there was Heavy-Rock and Jazz-Folk – a heady brew and concoction of sounds and genres. Armed with Mick Ronson’s muscular guitar; Bowie and his band created something singular yet familiar. It was the work of David Bowie but it was a new incarnation. 1973 was not a time for Bowie to rest: the prodigious songwriter moved onto Aladdin Sane: its cover was one of the most iconic of his career. It was a less intimate record than Hunky Dory: it is an urgent and bracing album that took risks and chances. If the music was charged and new – songs like The Jean Genie and Cracked Actor were like nothing he had ever crafted – the image of the man was a slight upgrade of Ziggy Stardust. The lightning-bolt decals and radical hair was a similar alter-ego – it would be hard to make such a huge leap given that short timeframe. It was, however, Bowie moving once more and trying out new things. In the 1970s, with stars like Marc Bolan popular at the time, there was that curiosity and sexual revolution; the androgynous figures who broke ground and, through Glam-Rock, added something new to music. Incredible fashions flowed and it was a heady time for those willing to break the rules. 1974’s Diamond Dogs was one of the last iterations of Ziggy Stardust.

The look was still, sort of, there but Bowie was taking in new inspiration. A marriage of Nineteen Eighty-Four (George Orwell) and Bowie’s own vision of a post-apocalyptic world – it was an album that was the last hooray of his Glam-Rock period. It was his first album since 1969 to not feature any of his ‘Spiders from Mars’ backing band. Bowie saw the album as more personal and ‘him’ than anything he has ever done. It was, in kind, a ‘protest album’ that dispensed with his older images and moved into the next phase. Diamond Dogs’ raw guitars and views of urban chaos brought nihilistic lovers and desolate lands. It, in a way, foreshadowed the Punk revolution that would kick-off in 1975 - and opened the eyes of rebels like Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious. Although critics were not as hot over Diamond Dogs – compared to records like Hunky Dory – it was another retooling and look. Maybe critics were unsure how to see the album: the fact Punk had not really exploded meant Diamond Dogs was ahead of its time – if only by a few months! Bowie’s 1990s/2000s work has plenty of new creation and musical shifts; it was productive and celebrated – the last real evolution was his exceptional 1975-1977 one-two-three: Young Americans, Station to Station and Low.

The new ‘Plastic Soul’ sound Bowie was interested in took shape on Young Americans. Recording took place in Philadelphia and, with producer Tony Visconti; it brought in a variety of other artists – including singer Luther Vandross. Bowie sourced from the music-halls and, as he would do did during his time in Germany, took from the local sounds and fashions around him. Bowie was proud of the album and saw it is a survivor against the assault of Muzak-Rock and derivative sounds. It was a “white limey” reinventing U.S. soul and bringing it to new faces. Station to Station was a transitional album that is seen as his most significant and best. It was the vehicle for his persona, the Thin White Duke, and followed Bowie’s role in the film, The Man Who Fell to Earth. Bowie developed the Funk and Soul sounds of his previous album on Station to Station; presenting synthesisers and motorik rhythms; bringing in influences of Neu! and Kraftwerk. It remains one of Bowie’s most accessible albums of all – it has impenetrability and complexity but resonated with critics. It is seen as a landmark album and one of the finest records ever. Low (1977) was the first of three collaborations with Brian Eno and Tony Visconti (the ‘Berlin Trilogy’) and marked a move towards Electronic music and the avant-garde. Side one contained shorter, direct songs: the second side was more instrumental and experimental.  

Bowie was struggling with drug addiction during the recording and some felt Low was a muddled and out-of-sorts record. Retrospective reviews have highlighted how influential and transformative Low really was. “Heroes”, also released in 1977, was the only one fully recorded in Berlin. It continued his work with Electronic elements and an ambient approach – bringing in darker atmospheres and passionate statements. It is one of his most determined, positive and uplifting statements. After the appropriately-named Low; people wanted something a bit more – something more spirited. Bowie delivered than and, in doing so, crafted another genius record. It was YET another sonic alteration and growth; a slight trimming of his wardrobe and the ever-curious songwriter taking inspiration from new bands and people. There would be other terrific Bowie albums and reinventions – 1983’s Let’s Dance saw him attempt black Funk and end, what was considered, one of the greatest winning-streaks in music history – but “Heroes”, perhaps, was the last really big statement. It is amazing to think of the amount of work David Bowie put out. Between 1971 and 1977; Bowie released NINE albums. 1970’s The Man Who Sold the World was the tremendous indication of what was the come: a fantastic record that really got under the skin and introduced the world to David Bowie. 1979’s Lodger saw Bowie bring World music into his chest but it was not considered as big a revelation as previous work – although the quality was still there and amazing critics (1984’s Tonight was a clear sign that the steam had run out and a rest was needed!).

It would be inconceivable to expect any modern artist, band or solo artist, to produce an album every year! The fact Bowie not only did that but, with every record, create something unique means we can never really expect anyone quite like him. What I DO want to see if an artist – whatever configuration or genre – to take the initiative and pick up Bowie’s torch. He did not make changes and create such a legacy to have it heard and admired – and not have anyone learn from it and make a change. Bowie wanted to change the world (and did) and push the boundaries of music. Maybe too much ground has already been broken – genres covered and boxes ticked – but that doesn’t mean modern artists need to stick with one style or ‘face’. Yes, some artists do evolve between albums and do something daring: too few make radical changes and take risks in music. Regarding Bowie’s fashion and images; how many modern artists have the dare and innovation to try something like that in today’s scene?! I would say nobody has the same mannerisms and mindset as Bowie. That is no bad thing but have we got to a point where homogenisation and structure rule music?! We need a lot of things to happen in new music: crafting innovators and daring icons are among them. One would not expect something paradigm-shifting and world-changing: merely, an artist who goes that one step further and has that interchangeable desire. Bowie was unique but we know how influential his music is. It has been inspiring generations and has, in its own way, progressed music and broken barriers. I hope there is someone out there who picks up his mantle and realises how sorely music needs the kind of spark David Bowie gave to music. Maybe the ‘Internet Age’ has lateralised and transformed music so those rebels and innovators struggle to make an impression. I know, out there somewhere, there is a musician who can launch and develop a career…

IN the guise of David Bowie.   

FEATURE: Vinyl Corner: Pearl Jam - Ten

FEATURE:

 

Vinyl Corner

PHOTO CREDIT: Lance Mercer 

Pearl Jam - Ten

__________

THIS is a segment where I select an album…

IN THIS PHOTO: Pearl Jam (1991)/PHOTO CREDIT: Lance Mercer/The Hell Gate

I think sounds best when played on a turntable. There are a few records that achieve their maximum potential when you drop the needle and let the vinyl goodness wash over you. In a previous instalment; I looked at Joni Mitchell’s Blue – one of those albums that is sublime when played on a C.D.: it achieves new realms of delight when spun on a record player! You only need look at the sales figures and facts around Pearl Jam’s Ten to know why the album continues to inspire so long after release. It is the debut album of the Alternative-Rock legends – many feel they have not equalled the brilliance and impact of that initial recording! A lot of the songs began as instrumental jams between the members of the newly-formed band. Eddie Vedder – their acclaimed singer – would then put his lyrics on the top. Songs looked at the nature of depression and abuse; homelessness and death – in 1991, when Grunge was in full-swing; these kind of songs were quite common and popular. Nirvana released their debut, Nevermind, in the same year: the latter became a megahit success for the Seattle band; Pearl Jam’s Ten was more of an 'outsider'. It is not quite Grunge: the sound (they make) harkens back to the Classic-Rock and Alternative bands of the 1970s, to an extent...

IN THIS PHOTO: Pearl Jam (1991)/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

It is grizzled and grimey but cleaner and more stadium-aiming than the likes of Nirvana. At a time when U.S. bands were ruling the planet; many could forgive critics for overlooking Pearl Jam – so hectic and busy was the scene back then. There were many, at the time of the album’s release, who accused Pearl Jam of trying to jump on the Grunge bandwagon, Jeremy, one of their big singles, is a definite attempt to replicate the same sort of sounds as Nirvana, Soundgarden and their contemporaries. Any accusations that song was trying to mimic should remember this: it was recorded and released before Nirvana’s Nevermind. Pearl Jam were responding to something in the air: a feeling and sound that was much-needed in the music world. They helped popularise Alternative-Rock and bring it more into the mainstream. Released on 27th August, 1991; Ten has shifted well over ten-million copies. It is the most commercially successful album of the band’s career and, in 2018, is still being incorporated into music. I hear a lot of bands with a Ten mindset: those big, dramatic songs all scored by a gravelled and impassioned voice. Vedder, to me, represented an alternative to the likes of (Nirvana’s) Kurt Cobain. It was less intense a performance, perhaps – in terms of volume and shouting – but a more rounded voice.

IMAGE CREDIT: Getty Images

Those deep tones could elevate into a falsetto: it could do soft and contemplative; rising to the heavens and taking the listener somewhere extraordinary. The band’s tight and exceptional performances meant the album became a huge hit in the 1990s. San Diego musician Vedder, before the album was recorded, heard demos his bandmates had recorded. Guitarist Steve Gossard and bassist Jeff Ament, alongside Mike McCready and Matt Cameron (the drummer with Soundgarden) began to put the songs together and, with Vedder, mould Ten. Several of the album’s songs began as instrumentals: Vedder added lyrics later (after he joined the band) and, with regards their content; the singer claimed it was about living in the moment. Depression and murder are addressed – but the album is never overtly-dark and repressive. It is about the realities of life and the openness of the human soul. He did not want to hide his feelings and, instead, allow the listener into his mind.  It is a record that takes risks and is dating – Why Go talks about psychiatric hospitals – and compelled a generation. Tracks such as Alive became anthems for youths at the time – in no small part because of its inspiration and uplifting sound. Alive – about a boy who discovers the man he thought was his father is actually his step-father (his real dad died years before) – was taken from Vedder’s own experience. When he was seventeen; Vedder found out his father was actually his step-father – and his real dad has died a long time ago.

I have thrown a spotlight on Ten before but, as I seek for something equivalent in the modern scene; my mind goes back to the 1991 album and how important it is. We have not really seen a band like Pearl Jam for some years. I know there is a demand and room for a group who can produce the same sweeping songs that deal with weighty subjects. We have some great bands coming through: none have the same clout, roar and drama as the U.S. band. There was something about the album’s timing that stirred up excitement. The stadium sounds of the 1970s – and all their heavy-riffed songs – mixed with 1980s Post-Punk and some of the of-the-moment Grunge movements. It was a cross-decades release that, unsurprisingly, appealed to a broad demographic. Bands who thought like Pearl Jam were given the impetus to rise and play – new idols were showing them the way and opening up their mind. The album was a huge hit that saw the band much-demanded and busy. They opened for Red Hot Chili Peppers (during their Blood Sugar Sex Magik tour) and were splitting their time between Europe and North America. 1991 was a fantastic year for music and one where new artists, if they produced an album strong enough, got the chance to play some incredible gigs; support some big names and get their music played across the world.

It was a vibrant and stunning time for music. Maybe there is little of the wit that made Nirvana stand out from the crowd: Pearl Jam are a more serious and overwrought band. The music and lyrics connected with people; the fantastic band interplay meant they were playing around the world; the music has endured and survived this long – and continues to influence bands. The eleven-track album (the original release) had some Grunge shades but stood apart from the zeitgeist at the time. If Pearl Jam had tried to compete with Nirvana; they might not have enjoyed the same success and made the same impression. As it was; the band took their own path and created a wonderful record. It is seen as one of the finest debut albums of all-time: other definitely put it among their choice albums ever. It is cited by critics as a ground-breaking and extraordinary work of brilliance. This is all true - but what resonates inside me is how the songs come alive on vinyl. Ten sounds fantastic however you play it: on vinyl, it assumes a new life and promise. It is intense listen but one that changes the listener. You cannot casually hear the album and let it swim into the background: it demands full involvement and concentration from its subjects! I would urge people to get the album (on vinyl) and let it do its thing. Twenty-seven years after its release; Pearl Jam’s keeps offering up revelations, insights and joy-bombs. It unfurls and teases; it brings you in and lets the music wash over the skin. It is a masterful work from a band who, in the space of a single record, helped bring Alternative-Rock…

IN THIS PHOTO: Pearl Jam (1991)PHOTO CREDIT: Lance Mercer

INTO the mainstream.   

FEATURE: Joy Division: Has Music Lost Its Sense of Fun?

FEATURE:

 

Joy Division

ALL PHOTOS (unless credited otherwise): Unsplash

Has Music Lost Its Sense of Fun?

__________

THE answer to the question, I guess, depends on whether…

you view things in binary terms. One can say things are not the same as they were and, when it comes to the mainstream; maybe there is not the same festivity and frivolity as past decades. It is a complex debate but I think there is a definite shift between the mainstream Pop artists and talent elsewhere. It is not as though the 1980s and 1990s were banquets of good times and uplifting anthems: plenty of downcast songs were around; if it was all fun and glee then that would be cloying and pointless. I have been looking at the music coming out at the moment and there are a few sparks here and there. Some have criticised the lack of genuine excitement and innovation in modern music. In some genres, such as Grime and Alternative, you might see flickers of progression and the unexpected but, when it comes down to it – most of the results are quite serious and angry! I am pumped new bands like Shame are coming to the forefront. They seem genuinely able to capture a mood and desire for change and motivation. I have heard few bands able to get under the skin and get me excited – the last was Royal Headache a (fair) few years ago now. I am sure their careers will be long but their qualities and kudos come from other areas.

PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

They are angry but intelligent; they document the realities of life and youth but, although there is wit and humour; it cannot be accused of being too much ‘fun’. Perhaps that is a drawback of genres like Punk and Rock. That said; genres like Pop and Electro/Dance, the most reliable when it comes to fun music, has become a bit more serious lately. There are hotly-tipped acts like Sigrid and Billie Eilish – they are going to take some big steps in 2018. They are fantastic teen artists who are pushing Pop forward but you have to wonder whether, in a bid to be seen as mature and against the commercial grain, they are sacrificing a certain frivolity for depth and meaning. That may seem an insane criticism – being serious and intelligent is more important than shallowness and empty fun – but, if you see music as a complex and diverse scene – should we not have more fun to balance out the seriousness and study?! I worry too much emphasis is being played on making songs downbeat and emotional; trying to get into the heart – rather than make the body and mind dance and jump. There are acts around in the mainstream – like Tune-Yards, Superorganism and The Go! Team – who I am excited about. Invention and alacrity run through their sounds; they fuse genres and sounds to provide the listener something wildly exciting and engaging.

IN THIS PHOTO: Shame/PHOTO CREDIT: Dan Kendall/Loud and Quiet Magazine

They are proof modern music can be serious and good without being too po-faced and lacking energy. I will come to the differences between older scenes and music today but, before then, a look at a BBC article that has been on my mind. They have been looking at modern Pop and noticing a movement towards something slower and sadder:

“In a 2012 paper entitled Emotional Cues in American Popular Music: Five Decades of the Top 40, E. Glenn Schellenberg, and Christian von Scheve analysed two key elements in hit pop songs. Taking the biggest hits in the Billboard charts from 1950 to 2010, they charted a song's tempo - how fast the backbeat is - and whether it is in a major or minor key. As a rule of thumb, music which is written in a major key tends to sound happier, and minor key songs sound sad.

This isn't a foolproof measurement of a song's overall happiness - some of Coldplay's most sob-worthy choruses are in a major key - but they did find that the public taste is towards more minor key songs with a slow tempo, such as Naked by James Arthur. Even the major key pop songs have got slower, suggesting fun is becoming a scarcer commodity, highlighting, as they put it, "a progressive increase of mixed emotional cues in popular music".

IN THIS PHOTO: Superorganism/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Songs have become less tonally interesting and complex: modern songs are simpler, angrier and more personal. The melodies being used today are not as rich and varied before; there are fewer chord shifts and there is a homogenisation of musical discourse – songs are becoming steadily louder and easier to understand. Maybe this is because, in order to grab attention, songwriters are going for something instant and uncomplicated. There is so much competition and choice: can anyone risk being overlooked if they go against the tide and provide songs that hark back to past days? The diversity of transitions between note combinations has decreased over the past fifty years. Artists are no less talented but the scene has changed. Artists, now, are expected to get their songs heard and racking up streaming numbers; appeal to demographics who do not want to dig too hard to find pleasure. Tomorrow; I will look at why we need a modern-day David Bowie in our midst: an innovator and icon that can last through the ages and compel generations. I do not think that is impossible. Now, we are seeing too many brief and transitory artists: few are sticking around and enduring for as long (as Bowie). Innovation and progression do not need to mean you lose a sense of fun and captivation.

Maybe, as the BBC article investigated; we are seeing a general weakening of the music scene. Do we favour sounds from the past? Is modern music able to last in the imagination?

“…That said, it's interesting to note the results of a 2014 poll conducted by Vanity Fair, in which 1,017 adults were asked a series of questions about their musical preferences.

When asked which decade has the worst music, their responses fanned out in broadly chronological order, with the 2010s getting 42% of the vote, the 2000s getting 15%, and the 1990s, 1980s and 1970s coming in fairly equally with 13%, 14% and 12%. This might lead a casual reader to conclude that the people polled were all of a certain age, but it seems to be an evenly held opinion. Of people aged 18-29, 39% voted for the 2010s, while the figure for the over 30s was 43%, which indicates most of the fun is in digging up old songs, rather than keeping up with the new”.

Most of my tastes go back to past days: I keep digging up big 1990s Dance anthems; themes and bangers that compelled me when I was young. I am listening a lot to Oasis and Blur; to dizzying 1980s Pop acts like Madonna and Talking Heads. I know those decades had their fair share of depressing artists but I can rely on older music to get the spirits up and blood racing. A few songs from the past few years, naturally, has left their mark and made me smile. Maybe the rules have changed and the consumer is looking for something different.

IN THIS PHOTO: Madonna/PHOTO CREDIT: Pinterest

Whereas, before, complexity and lyrical exploration was the mark of a great song: now, tracks are becoming more compressed and ‘economic’. Fewer words are being utilised and there is a push towards repetitiveness. Listeners will skip past a song – on Spotify or YouTube – if they are not hooked and won within a few seconds. The first minute of a song is crucial: people will wander off if there is not something immediate thrown at them. The brain likes familiarity and knowing what is coming next. One would think, in an attempt to achieve that, songs would be able to look back to glorious days and how those tracks lodged in the head. A lot of modern Pop has become sadder and self-examining. There is a tendency towards the first-person: songs are less about communities and crowds; it is to do with the self and an individual’s mindset. Does the move from overtness and bonding the masses to a more confined and personal style of music mean it has to become more emotive and serious?! I can understand a need to project truth and a certain anger as the world becomes more tense and unfair. The planet has always been in a bit of a state: turmoil and division are not new or out of the blue. There is a fear ‘fun’ has to be cheesy and juvenile. It does not have to be that way. Over the past few weeks; I have looked at bands like ABBA: able to summon enormous fun and energy whilst writing undeniably detailed and deep songs. It might sound simple on the surface but there is exceptional musicianship at the core.

We know Pop music is being put into the fore this year. It is a good time to examine the artists who will make a difference – and seeing what sounds they come up with. Acts like Sigrid can bring fireworks and sunshine but she is among a band of artists providing a more mature approach to Pop. You can argue the current crop – including Katy Perry and Lady Gaga – are exciting and vivacious but, when you listen to their music; do the songs stay in the head for all that long?! It is difficult to see how music can change so that artists eradicate depression but ensure their music is nuanced, meaningful and important. We need our musicians to speak about what is going on in life; not worry about traditional configurations and demands – many are too eager to follow the pack and produce something simple, repetitive and commercial. I do not have the answers myself but, aside from a few artists who remind me of a time when music was fun, incredibly exciting and moving – the scene is busier but I wonder whether there are other reasons behind the downturn. I have brought in some explanation and facts but maybe the truth is simpler: modern music is more concerned with the first-person and personal woes; the days of getting-the-masses-grinning music is reserved to certain genres and artists.

We have older music if we want to get the face grinning and memories flooding back. Modern music is great but I am fearful there is less fun available for those who need escape and disconnection. We all spend our days working, busy and stressed: the desire to unwind and submit to music is at the top of my mind when I get home. Because of that; I am straight onto YouTube and listening to my favourite songs – most of these are from an awfully long time ago! I can feel myself in need of relief and seeking something that gets my eyes wide and mood elevated. Some modern artists do that but most are suitable for introversion and anger. Those great solo artists and bands provide great music but I do not really go to them for a blast of excitement and happiness: they have their place and unique role. Maybe this is something we need to address as we embrace change and new artists: ensuring music does not lose its character and fun amidst the rush and hastiness of the modern industry. I have not lost hope but I feel there are questions we need to ask. If we want listeners of all tastes and ages to remember music of today years down the line – rather than look back for comfort and reliability – then we need to ensure there is a fair balance of the serious and genuine pleasure. I cannot be alone in wanting music to put me in a better mood and get make me feel happy. If we can make changes, even small, towards a return – in terms of mood and complexity – to the music we turn to for safety; I feel things will be a lot better all-round. How that will be done is a different point. There is the promise of an upbeat-revolution but, in order for it to truly take hold, we must get out of the current ruts and be brave enough…

TO break the rules.   

FEATURE: On the Comeback Trial… Are All Band Reunions a Battle Against Disappointment?

FEATURE:

 

On the Comeback Trial…

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

Are All Band Reunions a Battle Against Disappointment?

__________

WE all know how those big films end...

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

Whether it is Fight Club’s split-personality revelation; the bombshell that upset a generation of children watching Bambi; the exceptional twist that came with The Sixth Sense – all of us remember those epic-ending films and ask ourselves whether we really saw it coming or not. Now, in the age of full disclosure; we struggle to avoid spoilers and having our expectations shortened – it is hard to escape the assault from the media and how anyone can share anything online. Music suffers from the same problems. Albums do not contain twists or plot-turns: the sounds and sensations we witness can, though, flabbergast and excite. Reviews and teasers take some of that surprise and happenstance away. Whilst a lot of great music arrives unexpectedly; there is one angle and area of the game that is becoming more predictable: when famous bands reunite. I have been ‘compelled’ by those Pop bands of the 1990s/2000s that have come together, one suspects, to relive the magic and ecstasy of their heyday – one also suspects they are more motivated by money and flagging solo careers. I heard a story about S Club 7’s Paul Cattermole selling his BRIT Award – I guess life outside of music is not treating him so well! Other members of the long-gone band have forged careers (of varying fortunes). Rachel Stevens had a short-lived solo career before getting married and giving birth.

IN THIS PHOTO: S Club 7/PHOTO CREDIT: Alamy

I doubt she will record anything else in the future – she does various T.V. appearances but is limited to the role of ‘reality T.V. contestant’. Tina Barrett did some acting roles but she is back in a slim-lined S Club 3 – alongside Bradley McIntosh and Jo O’Meara. It is a bit sad seeing three-sevenths of a formerly okay-ish band trying to recapture their best days. I am not sure whether they are even recording new material – or playing their older songs on a rather ‘modest’ touring scale (small clubs and venues). I doubt the seven members will ever come together – few people care one way or the other. The band had some good hits back in the day, but now, it seems rather fallow and sallow. It is a pale and empty version of what they were: the commercial lure and value of nostalgia has brought other bygone artists back together. A lot of the bands from past days split because of faded fortunes and tensions. It seems there are lingering issues between former member Cattermole and current S Club 3 member O’Meara. The former claims the latter is a bully – someone too controlling and spiteful. Other Pop bands, like Blue and Five, have tried a reunion but have been limited to some rare performances and misjudged singles. I know the music industry has changed since, say, the 1990s but it does not seem to resonate with those who were successful back then.

IN THIS PHOTO: Spide Girls/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Why would anyone think a retooled S Club 7 or Spice Girls could succeed?! There has been endless chat about the Spice fivesome returning to the fold. They really only created one decent album (Spiceworld). The band formed in 1994 and started to flag once Geri Halliwell left – in 1998, the girls had to adapt to life as a foursome. There has been a poorly-received musical from Jennifer Saunders; endless rumours and big-money tease. I hope they never do reform as it would be a rather weak version of who they were. The fact the Pop bands like Spice Girls and S Club 7 were popular is because of when they were performing and what they represented. Now, the game has Little Mix and Fifth Harmony; Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift – updated versions of the Pop bands I was growing up around. It is a more modern and fresh scene and one defined by a crucial consistency: it is very much for the young. If the sight of once-famous Popstars gyrating around a stage appeals to those who cannot really hang onto the past – how will they fare if they make an honest attempt to fit into today’s mainstream?! Most of the hottest Popstars of the day are in their teens/twenties – maybe, you have some validity when you are in your thirties. The members of former bands are, largely, into their late-thirties and forties.

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

Unless you established bands like Foo Fighters and Coldplay, for example; there is little commercial validity (being in a band) when you are a certain age. That sounds all-sweeping but how many bands in their forties/late-thirties can you name? Most are younger and, in a scene dominated by solo artists; there is far less demand for the traditional group – far less those who have broken up and are reforming. New hopefuls like Shame and Yonaka are providing hope: if they broke up and returned a decade down the line; one feels they would not get a second glance! Steps formed back in 1997 and enjoyed a run of success during the decade – they recorded past the 1990s but critical focused waned following their debut, Step One. Many felt, when they split in 2001, that would be it. Claire Richard and Ian ‘H’ Watkins left on the final night of the band’s Gold: Greatest Hits tour. They might be one of the few bands who had a hard split and returned harmoniously after many years apart. Last year’s Tears on the Dancefloor was the second album from Steps 2.0. – the same members who last recorded together on the 2000 album, Buzz. 2012’s Light Up the World was mostly covers-based and did not fare well with critics. It was a departure from their previous work and was seen as alienating and weak. Last year’s follow-up was, by comparison, a finer effort.

PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

The songs are original – albeit, with a writing a team penning the songs – and contain some of the glee and invention of their first incarnation – even though the members are all comfortably in their forties. I am not sure how they will sustain a career given the demands of the modern market: maybe they have another album in them before attention goes away. It is not only Pop bands reforming that shows there is more trial and diminished returns – inherent in a comeback – than success and a natural continuation. Other 1990s bands like Space (who reformed and split again in 2005) Blackstreet (they did not split but were A.W.O.L. for a long time!) have had mixed success: Reef, Cast and Shed Seven have come back from premature ends and reformed with success. Shed Seven, especially, are enjoying new recording and gig opportunities. Their music is not a repeat of where they were in the 1990s: last year’s Instant Pleasures was a critical hit and showed they could mix it with the best of the new breed. Whilst I argue there are some disastrous and ill-advised returns: there have been reunions that have actually worked and continue to foster great material.

IN THIS PHOTO: Shed Seven/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Eagles reunited and recorded for a while before Glen Frey’s death. Squeeze recorded new material after their split – although they have not been talked about for a few years. The more successful among the reunited include Blondie and Fleetwood Mac. Aside from big bands of the 1990s like James getting back into the studio and recording new stuff – some of those decades-old bands are enjoying a new lease. Blondie’s last first-phase ended with 1982’s flop, The Hunter. Many did not think they would return: 1999’s No Exit, with Maria as a stunning example of what they could capture, was a more successful and better-received L.P. It wasn’t until 2003’s The Curse of Blondie until critics were back on board. Led by the always-alluring and talented Debbie Harry; Clem Burke’s phenomenal percussion and Chris Stein’s epic guitars – the bond they shared, and mutual respect present, means the next phase lasted longer than many expected. Even after another eight-year gap; the band returned with Panic of Girls – an album that did not get a huge amount of love. Last year’s Pollinator was a stronger effort and, following such a long gap; many argue that time apart (since their previous record) did them good. Blondie are a band who has created some of the best albums ever – 1978’s Parallel Lines among them – but their modern versions have been a little mixed.

PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Pollinator suggests they are back on a solid foundation and have found writers/producers capable of keeping their fortunes and spirits alive for many years to come. I have not even mentioned bands of the 1980s like Spandau Ballet, ABC and Duran Duran who have reformed but, in a time that has forced them to adapt – and drop a member in the case of Spandau Ballet – they are changed and out-of-touch with today’s music. It all sounds a little middle-aged, lifeless and pointless. I admire a band that still has friendships and is keen to keep on recording. The material they produce, however, is always going to be compared to what made their famous -   they will never capture that magic and create anything as good as that. I wonder whether there is a point beyond money and trying to remain relevant. Fleetwood Mac are an usually exception of a band who have never really gone away. Their recording output is not as prolific as one would hope – Time was the last album before the band took a hiatus. 2003’s follow-up might not be considered a reformation record. Many claim the band never split: they have left gaps between albums and there was no acrimony. Tensions reached their peak around Rumours/Tusk (1977 – 1979) and, since then, they managed to keep on recording and going.

IN THIS PHOTO: Fleetwood Mac/PHOTO CREDIT: Danny Clinch

I wonder whether they will ever get back into the studio and release another album. The band are performing - and on the road - so it is clear they still have affection and passion for what they do – Lindsey Buckingham and Christine McVie even recorded an album together last year. Stevie Nicks was the only band member not to appear on the record – maybe a sign she is not willing to get back into the studio quite yet. I know the band have overcome hurdles and survived some blow-ups. I wonder whether they will go from touring and gigs to getting another record together. It is always hard finding fresh inspiration that is going to get you into the minds of critics and fans – even if relationships are okay between the members. I think bands that reformed do it for a couple of reasons. Punk acts like The Pretenders (mostly Chrissie Hynde from the original line-up) do it because they love music and do not want to live in the past – unwilling to trade on past glories and cash-in regarding nostalgia. Some of the Pop bands I mentioned do not want to enter a new phase and produce great material: they are more concerned with trying to rekindle some of the fame and attention they had in their first phase; unable to produce anything significant, modern or relevant. It is, therefore, a mixed-bag when it comes to reunions.

IN THIS PHOTO: The Smiths/PHOTO CREDIT: Pictorial Press Ltd./Alamy

Some of them can work – Blondie and Fleetwood Mac – but more of them fail and, at the very least, are not as exciting and quality-laden as you’d hope. Alongside those reunited bands are those many of us want to get together: The Smith, Oasis and Led Zeppelin among the most talked-about. There is a fear that the bands could not create material that justified the build-up; relationships are strained (Oasis and The Smiths unlikely to see their leaders on the same stage); whether they will do it for music or the money – cynics will jump on the fact these rumours are attached with multi-million-pound gig offers and recording contracts! I hope the bands do not get back together - as it will taint their legacies and, like The Stone Roses (and a couple of rare singles), it will not materialise into anything long-term and productive. The members are all getting on and many have their solo careers. We must accept bands break up for good reasons and it is always risky trying to relive the past. There have been some successful-ish reunions but most are seen as gossamer-thin compared to the heady days when they ruled music – fading and ageing members who seem out of touch with the current scene. I love looking back on great bands and artists that inspired me growing up: I do not want any of them to come back together and try to repeat what they did all that time ago! Maybe Oasis could pen a few good hits but it is not the 1990s anymore. Music is looking for fresh artists and something unexpected. Whilst it is tempting to imagine which bands could come back together; the reality is the finished result is a bit sad. I admire their reasons for coming back to music – even if it is just for cash – but, when all is said and done; sometimes it is better to leave these bands…

IN THIS PHOTO: Oasis/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

BACK in the past.   

FEATURE: The January Playlist: Vol.3: Supplies That ‘Fix Me’ (Listen to Your Friends)

FEATURE:

 

The January Playlist

 IN THIS PHOTO: Kylie Minogue/ALL PHOTOS (unless credited otherwise): Getty Images

Vol.3: Supplies That ‘Fix Me’ (Listen to Your Friends)

_______

THERE are dips and highs…

IN THIS PHOTO: Tune-Yards/PHOTO CREDIT: Eliot Lee Hazel

when it comes to the world of new music. This week is pretty big - but does not quite have the same muscle as when David Byrne and Jack White unleashed new sounds! Justin Timberlake, Jorja Smith and Beck are on the block; Declan McKenna, U2 and Tracey Thorn have new songs/videos out – as do Editors and EELS.

I have collated the best new releases from the week – included are cuts from Beth Ditto, Bleachers; Kylie Minogue, Tune-Yards and Young Fathers.

________

Justin Timberlake - Supplies 

Jorja Smith (ft. Stormzy) - Let Me Down

PHOTO CREDIT: V Magazine

Bleachers - Alfie's Song (Not So Typical Love Song)

Beck – Fix Me

Declan McKenna – Listen to Your Friends

Gengahr - Before Sunrise

Tinashe (ft. Offset) - No Drama

Tom Grennan – Sober

The Chainsmokers – Sick Boy

George Ezra – Paradise

U2 – Get Out of Your Own Way

PHOTO CREDIT: Rahi Rezvani

Editors – Magazine

Moon Taxi – Nothing Can Keep Us Apart

EELS – The Deconstruction

Kylie Minogue – Dancing

Rae Morris – Lower the Tone

Tracey Thorn – Queen

PHOTO CREDIT: Bella Howard

Burna Boy (ft. Lily Allen) – Heaven’s Gate

The Wombats – Cheetah Tongue

Betty Who – Ignore Me

Moose Blood – It’s Too Much

Beth Ditto – I’m Alive

Young Fathers – In My View

Fall Out Boy – Church

Troye Sivan – The Good Side

First Aid Kit – Postcard

The Go! Team – Hey!

Tune-Yards – Coast to Coast

The Vaccines – I Can’t Quit

Hinds - New For You

BØRNS - Dear BØRNS

SUUNS - Watch You, Watch Me

FEATURE: We Need to Talk About Katy: Why Witness’ Poor Sales Mean the U.S. Star Needs Protection – Not a ‘Tough Talk’ from Her Label

FEATURE:

 

We Need to Talk About Katy

IN THIS PHOTO: The cover of Katy Perry's album, Witness/ALL PHOTOS (unless credited otherwise): Getty Images

Why Witness’ Poor Sales Mean the U.S. Star Needs Protection – Not a ‘Tough Talk’ from Her Label

__________

I was flicking through the music news when…

I came across a story regarding Popstar Katy Perry. Witness, her latest album, entered the U.K. charts at number-six and has sold fewer than 60,000 copies to date. Her previous albums have shifted more than 500,000 copies – this latest revelation is seen as a huge (commercial) disappointment. Capitol Records’ Steve Barnett has a great relationship with the label’s star but, as he said, there need to be tough conversations and a serious review. Katy Perry has a very distinct demographic – mainly young girls and teenagers – and there is nothing radical about her new record. Witness is a bit bigger and bolder than most albums out there. One cannot accuse her of toning things down or taking a more mature and soft approach. Maybe that is the problem, perhaps? There are those who might look for an evolutionary shift but, considering her fans have been with her since the start – I wonder why the sales have dipped. It is natural for an artist to encounter some poor sales. That should not be met with record bosses’ stern expressions and a rather serious chat. It is like being at school: Katy Perry, the A-grade student, is seeing her results slips and, as such, the headmaster has got involved. Prism, released in 2013, was considered a cleaner and tighter album than previous efforts; a fun album that saw Perry embrace the mainstream wholly.

PHOTO CREDIT: AJ Numan

It gained some mixed feedback but many saw it as a decent and appealing record – one that could cross borders and draw in non-Pop fans. That has been the same impression with her other albums: ever since her 2001 debut (Katy Hudson); there has been a split but a general consensus the music she puts out has energy and a smile on its face. She trades in upbeat Pop bangers and songs designed to get her fans dancing. Witness, maybe, has more in the way of contemplation and introversion but it is not exactly a record full of ballads and Jazz standards! From a sonic and stylistic viewpoint; you cannot claim poor sales are the result of a radical creative left-turn. The tour she is on right now (named after her album) is picking up impressive tickets sales – one cannot claim Perry is lacking fandom and love. I am not her biggest fan but have listened to her albums and cannot see a huge shift between them. The record label is guiding her to a particular sound and style. They want her to remain as she always has been with, perhaps, a few different aspects here and there. Perry delivered the goods on Witness but I wonder whether some pre-release reviews caused damage.

Songs like Witness and Swish Swish (ft. Nicki Minaj) are her classic stock-and-trade; Chained to the Rhythm (with Skip Marley) a big hit – other songs are more anxious, muddled and conceptually flawed. There is ambition in the record but some critics noted a dependence on reverb/effects; a record that was trying to say something without putting its finger on it; a little bit of a lunge for creative credibility. I look at that last point and wonder whether Perry’s management and label are responsible for any negativity. She has been given a certain degree of freedom but, since hit albums like Teenage Dream (2010); she has tried new things and not wanted to get bogged down. There are plenty of collaborations on Witness; some songs have a similar tone but there is the impression of a young artist not wanting to get stale. Whose decision this artistic change was – the label or Perry herself – I am not sure. Witness topped the U.S. Billboard chart and was successful (in terms of the charts) in many nations. Songs have been spun on BBC Radio 1 and it has seen her embark on a very lucrative tour. One cannot say, by any measure, Witness marks a failure! Maybe it is less bombastic and sun-seeking than her previous albums: the thirty-three-year-year-old realises she needs to start acting her age…to a degree, anyway! I am pleased that the album does not try to revert back to her 2010-stage; she is moving forward and, yes, there might be one of two weaker moments.

Her fans, without offending, are not the type to look at reviews and be disheartened. They buy Perry’s music because it comes from an artist they connect with. She is an idol to them and, unless she embarks on a seriously misguided sonic path; they are going to follow her and buy her albums! The four-year gap between Prism and Witness means, maybe, there was too long a wait for new material. Perry was busy touring after Prism’s success so could not have been expected to race into the studio and lay down new material. Those dates and demand are crafted by the same people who are questioning Witness’ sales. The bosses cannot point the finger at an artist who has followed their orders and delivered a huge album. After the rigorous dates and exhausting performances; one could not expect to get her into the studio that quickly. Again; management and the label are responsible for when Perry records and when they want a record. Witness was released on 9th June (2017) and, as it is not the most summer-sounding album she has released; maybe that decision was flawed. Other artists have come onto the scene that has the same sort of sound and dynamic as Perry. Pop artists are springing up all over the place – fans might go looking for their next fix if they feel they are deprived of music. With more competition coming in – younger and fresher – it is inevitable artists as established as Katy Perry would see a slight downturn. It has happened to everyone from Lady Gaga to Rihanna: you can never keep the gas on all the time and, so many years after her debut; one can forgive a slump (of sorts).

We are buying music digitally so it is hard to say how many people actually bought her album. If you can get it for free – or hearing it from someone else – that does not reflect the complete picture. Videos for singles like Swish Swish and Chained to the Rhythm commanded multi-million views on YouTube; they were soundtracks of the summer (although both songs were released earlier in 2017) and did not suggest an artist in trouble. I know Perry will go on to release many more albums and change her sound. As she is in her thirties; the music might get more mature and considered – it is down to management and the record label to look after their star and ensure she is marketed and branded appropriately. That four-year wait is partly responsible for less-than-staggering sales figures but you cannot put too much pressure on an artist. Perry will only feel ready to record and inspired if they have enough time to breathe and opportunity for personal space. Maybe there are issues with her longevity and what people expect from someone like Katy Perry. She is seen as this ever-cheery American singer who brings the bangers and has that Californian swagger. That is all well after a few albums – and when you are in your twenties – but I wonder whether a naively means fans/labels expect her to be that same person today.

The market has plenty of other artists who can do that sort of soulless, yet fun, type of Pop. It is a staple among the pre-teens but, as her fans get older; Perry needs to make music that is meaningful to them – not ensure there is arrested development. She needs to appeal to the same demographic she did at the start of her career but, with a need to do something different; can she appeal to everyone at the same time?! Maybe a slight muddle and head-splitting marketing nightmare mean Witness’ slight sales should be an alarm. Perry is at a stage where she needs the label and management to sit down and have a constructive talk about the next stage of her career. She wants to remain popular and relevant but cannot repeat what she has been doing for years. Rather than admonish her for – what they see as – poor sales; sit with her and have a constructive talk. The next album might need to arrive sooner than 2020/2021 but, as she is slammed with touring, there will not be any more material for a while yet! I am not expecting those management conversations to be too brutal or career-ending. They will not terminate their association with their star but, I feel, there will be a push to get more material out and return to her early days.

I feel Perry, in a move to forge a more age-appropriate identity, has taken gambles and done something impressive. She is trying to please older and new fans – we cannot expect that sort of leap to be a total success. The touring demands, YouTube views and positive reviews (there are a few) show she is not lacking in affection and popularity. Sales figures are not the total sum of an album and, with streaming so readily available; I wonder whether we can ever get an accurate reflection of an album’s worth (on that basis). Surely the reviews are more important? Witness has been well-received by many but, regarding those who were less effusive, maybe this will help her grow and strengthen for her latest album. The latest absurdity in Pop means we are putting too much pressure on modern artists to conform to a very business-orientated approach to music. If they do not shift one-million units – or break Spotify records – then they are past it and fading. We are seeing plenty of great albums denied good sales and proper spotlight: poor records getting a lot of kudos and breaking records all over the shop. One cannot put too much stock in trade: the quality of the music, and the demand for the artist, outweighs all that. The fact Perry played last year’s Glastonbury means her music is getting her onto some impressive stages. She, like Lorde and Taylor Swift, are Pop artists who are capable of reaching listeners in different age brackets and genres (those who prefer other styles of music). Witness is not the sign of a decline and catastrophe: it is an album that has resonated with her current base – and one I found more consistent than previous records – but, perhaps, means her label needs to get into talks to think about her direction. Rather than turn their nose up at lacklustre sales; they need to be more supportive and ensure their precious talent is able to grow and remain. Perry will be on the scene for years to come and, following Witness’ reactions and reviews; I do not feel the American needs to go into a protection scheme…  

ANYTIME soon! 

FEATURE: Palookaville Bible Dust: Is It Possible to Achieve Your Dreams in Music?

FEATURE:

 

Palookaville Bible Dust

ALL PHOTOS (unless credited otherwise): Unsplash

Is It Possible to Achieve Your Dreams in Music?

__________

THIS thought is sponsored by a bit of a crossroads…

that has come into my life. In terms of my writing; I enjoy what I do and am always looking to improve and build. One of the biggest ambitions I have is to heighten my site and take it in new directions! The reason I am not pumped and racing ahead is that the ‘real life’ side of things is holding back that charge! The last couple of years have, without doubt, been the worst of my life: in a wretched job I hate and cannot get away from; unable (despite endless mailing and applications) a job in London/Manchester; taking steps backward and spending time in an area/around people I hate (except for my family). It is a horrible and stressful time and, above all, is that desire to get away, move to the city and start living – it seems like a distant dream. The half of me that is succeeding and growing is online-based and intangible. I can gauge the appreciation an artist provides after a review/interview; see the sort of people responding to the stuff I put out there; know a few people are discovering my work and taking heart from it – there is an emptiness that remains when I think about it. I love what I do – or would not dedicate all my free-time to it – but that desire to take a more physical and multimedia approach to my music is always on my brain. The only way I can subsidise my dreams, and make real progression, is to move to London/Manchester; get a better/better-paid job; go somewhere more social and pleasant – locate to an area I feel more comfortable and happy.

I know a lot of musicians in the same position: they can dream big and love music but, because of the domestic/work side of life; they feel a bit trapped and lost. This may sound like a feature that should appear in a business publication but the point remains: can you achieve anything in music if you keep passionate and remain focused? It sounds a bit New Age and quasi-philosophical: have that positive mindset and, before you know it, things will happen. I am not one who validates notions of karma, parity and fate: one must go out and earn luck. People do not get what they deserve – they get what they get, unfortunately. I feel, at thirty-four, so far behind where I want to be as a person. I know a surfeit of relationships and sociability will be amended when I relocate; a job will come soon enough – I feel like I have been enclosed for too long; not getting any breaks and unable, like a bee caught in the sun, unable to escape from a jam jar. If I were in any other industry, away from entertainment/media, I think I would be much further ahead. I would have more job opportunities and it would be simpler to go into the career of my choice. I feel, as bad as things are, my love of music and need to follow it to the ends of the Earth are keeping me ticking and in the game – able to rationalise a lack of love and happiness.

I guess every part of the media/entertainment world is difficult – not something you can easily slide into and get paid right away. A few days back; I wrote about the music media and how difficult it is getting paid work – many have to undertake unpaid internships and, with it, there is that hardship and struggle to make ends meet. I hear lots of horror stories where artists, with a lot of ambition and desire, are felled by the realities and hurdles of music. They set their sights on success and a certain game-plan: after a while, the scales fall - and those dreams they once had seem to die away. It is upsetting to see but I wonder whether more (in terms of numbers) positive messages should be put out; a way for artists/creative to keep going and be provided with some positive enforcement. I can’t imagine a more depressing and numbing environment than where I am right now – in terms of work and how far away I seem to be from the rush and excitement of London – but there are two options: make a drastic break and task a risk (knowing, if I quit a job and move there without one, I could fail) or remain where I am, put the hours into my writing, and hope that it pays off. The former option is more attractive and tempting: the latter is the one I have to abide by...

IN THIS PHOTO: Clairo/PHOTO CREDIT: Pinterest

I will come to possible solutions and industry-wide schemes but, when thinking about survival mechanisms – I have been looking at a couple of recent interviews with artists; making points that resonate with me. Clairo, a young YouTube star, might not be the first person one would study for perceived wisdom and inspiration – that is no slight but the preconception we have of certain artists. The U.S. artist has played sold-out gigs and, when speaking (recently) with Pitchfork talked about her rise and a successful 2017. She is a freshman (excuse the academic-based sexist term!) at Syracuse University and hopes to have an E.P. out soon. It will be, as she says, a sort of bedroom-era version of what she has done before. Whether that means dorm-made recordings – or lyrical arcs that look at the vicissitudes of home and a personal space – I am not sure. Songs like Pretty Girl have lodged in critics’ heads and, releasing it as part of a female/non-binary cassette compilation; the song is a wise and investigative number looking at how one can lose themselves along the way. Not only does the song connect but the way she is doing things is compelling. Rather than chase music and think big without a back-up-net; she is studying and recording in her spare time. Rather than become disappointed and make unrealistic plans; that pragmatic and practical approach to music is humbling.

IN THIS PHOTO: Rina Sawayama/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Another artist, Rina Sawayama, has looked at the addiction to social media on her self-titled mini-album. Songs like Ordinary Superstar and Cyber Stockholm Syndrome talk of YouTube vloggers and how we substitute real-life for the digital one. The interview she conducted with The Guardian got me thinking about something bothering me: how far along some of these YouTube ‘stars’ are; how dependent I am on social media. There are contractions when looking at Sawayama. She writes about those, like a drug, hooked on social media: she, herself, spends time on social media and, when at her most anxious, writes about that feeling. The East Asian writer is adapting to life in the Western world; creating something rare in this country – a lot of what she is putting out saying. It makes me think about how I approach journalism and live my life. I am too focused on the Internet and hoping things will happen there: getting out there and being able to wean myself from the screen is the biggest flaw I have. I feel you can achieve anything in music but there is a caveat: ensuring the time spent on social media/the Internet is right. That might sound subjective but, from my viewpoint, I am writing too much – when I could be out there handing out C.V.s – and assume, unless I am mega-busy all the time, I will get overlooked and forgotten – or my fingers will atrophy from lack of work!

The subcutaneous effects of social media mean we spend far too much time away from people – thinking all our answers and luck will come from there. I feel a lot of my malaise and depression stems from over-dependence on writing and unable to escape a trap: getting out there and feeling confident taking a few days off here and there might be a more sensible approach? I think all us creative types get too focused on grand ideas and goals; an unrealistic picture that we, inevitably, fail to live up to – maybe that is to do with the media and their ideals; the pressure and competition we see on social media. I know I will never be a one-man Pitchfork but I also know my work matters. Finding that middle-ground and reassurance is what makes the difference – that can only come from human interaction and feeling comfortable about your job/life/psychological well-being. My five-year business plan includes a professional writing/media gigs (radio or press); spending time in Australia, the U.S. and traveling the U.K.; settling in London/Manchester and, essentially (socially) making up for a lot of lost time. The core ambition I have is to keep the blog going but make it more interactive, visual and ambitious. The sticky-wicket is when I understand how that can be achieved: getting a job that pays me the money so I can afford to that – taking me back to the initial point and the bind I am in.

Many of us dream large and a lot of our depression and anxiety comes when we consider how far we have come; we deem ourselves ‘failures’ if we do not achieve everything right away – forgetting how important realisations and small (positive) steps are. Age does not matter – if you are not a big deal by a certain time – and change can occur if you take sensible steps to break out of a bad mindset/rut. That is the position I am in: I need to get out of a depressing funk and start thinking about things like work, living and location – rather than become too obsessed with writing every hour and feeling social media visibility is the way I will get that ‘dream job’. One of the biggest issues I have encountered is the fact most of the opportunities out there are advertised online. I have to spend a certain amount of time researching but, whilst I am on my laptop; there is that temptation to write and go on social media. Breaking that habit is hard but, in the long-run, is it the best thing to do. No matter how lofty your aims are, there is a way of achieving it. I hear of artists who want to get their music played on the national stations. Everyone is vying for the same honour – it makes things harder; working for visibility in a crowded sea. It may take longer than you’d hoped but, with persistence and patience, it can happen. You can contact these stations and keep them abreast of all your material; find ways of spreading the song to the people – the more people who hear it; the bigger it becomes and, in time, that gets to the big guns.

So much of modern music is about artists striving for something that justifies the work and time they put into things. A certain amount of Internet-time is required but it is important not to measure success and ‘worth’ based on other people. The media and music scene is open to everyone and there is no race to get to the top. I understand competition is tough but setting smaller goals (at first) and making those all-important connection is paramount. Every year, draw a plan of what you want to achieve and plan how you will go about doing that. Set aside a small amount of time every day and do something productive – even if it is emailing radio stations or booking gigs. I am taking this approach and, after a couple of bad personal years; I am ensuring I give myself enough time to find that acceptable work-life (social and actual) balance. Spending less time frittering time on social media – and seeing it as a replacement for human contact – spend your online time building your career and making concerted, daily steps towards the summit. The reason I have been so down is (because) I’m judging myself against bigger websites and sources: they all have teams and, as hard as I work, I could never match them (for quality or popularity). Reaching a few new people every day is a massive victory. It may not be a headline slot at Glastonbury but see music as a years-long career that will provide small gifts every year. I am determined to take a much healthier, pragmatic approach to 2018. I have dreams – and want to achieve them all – but, rather than get them all realised this year; I am setting myself longer-term goals and, in the process, providing more time to relax and become more sociable. Happiness and personal fulfilment are more important than anything out there. Every artist/writer can reach what they set their mind to – just don’t get hooked on chasing others and seeing surging too far ahead. See this fresh year as one that will bring success but may not, necessarily…

SEE all your dreams realised.

FEATURE: Linger: Remembering Dolores O’Riordan: The Playlist

FEATURE:

 

Linger

 IN THIS PHOTO: Dolores O'Riordan/PHOTO CREDIT: Billboard/Getty Images

Remembering Dolores O’Riordan: The Playlist

_______

I may be a bit late to lay a tribute down but…

PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

I was keen to add my voice! Whatever way you discovered The Cranberries; their intoxicating lead Dolores O’Riordan seduced and amazed all those who heard her. Many see Zombie – one of the band's finest tracks – as a call for common sense and a rebellion. It was the sobering shot against senseless violence and resonated with many in Ireland – all those who witnessed the 1993 bombing in Warrington. Its two young victims, Johnathan Ball and Tim Parry, were immortalised in the song. It is a powerful moment and one that showcased the amazing vocal range of O’Riordan. Linger is, perhaps, the one we all know the band for. It was a way O’Riordan found the band - a demo version of the song was the first thing she brought to them. Her songs looked at the heartache and disappointment of love but moved into political and social boundaries – unafraid to tackle something hard-hitting and important. Her incredible voice and songwriting inspired many other artists and compelled those who heard her. Many dressed like her and copied her style; others found a voice that spoke for them; others were intrigued by the paradoxical nature of her being. She was fierce and shy at times; inscrutable and down-to-earth. Her warm personality and friendliness is one of the biggest take-aways we have of the Irish star – everyone who came into contact with her was seduced and affected.

PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can’t We? was the incredible debut from The Cranberries. O’Riordan; alongside Noel Hogan, Mike Hogan and Fergal Lawler released a staggering record with standout songs such as Linger, Dreams and Sunday. It amazed critics and introduced the band to the world – the affection was there right from the start! In 1993, when there was still Grunge, huge Pop and Rock movements: The Cranberries were apart and doing something different. They were a unique group who did not want to fit into any rigid formats and moulds. That was personified by Dolores O’Riordan and the way she performed. No Need to Argue, released in 1994, was the band’s best-selling album and dispensed with the double and triple-layered vocals – preferring a clean vocal sound and a more focused production. Zombie was the big hit from the record: I Can’t Be With You and Ridiculous Thoughts were other standout songs that showcased the band’s consistency and evolution. By 2003; the band went separate ways and needed time to do their own thing. They would come back in 2009 and, as recent as last year; there was talk a new album would arrive (this year). Something Else, released last year, featured acoustic renditions of their best-known songs – and showed the band were keen to move forward in addition to looking back.

PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

To me; Dolores O’Riordan was that rare voice and artist who did not want to repeat what was out there: she was a rare bird whose song motivated so many other artists to take to music. I have heard so many stories of musicians being awed by The Cranberries and this stunning voice; an incredible woman who was unlike anything out there. It is devastating O’Riordan is no longer with her – one of the greatest voices of the past few decades. Her death is not suspicious but one wonders why a forty-six-year-old could be taken from us so swiftly! She was in London for a brief recording session and, word has it, was excited about getting into the studio. I cannot believe she took her own life – she was diagnosed as bipolar and suffered mood-swings – and the fact she was here to record new music means she was looking ahead. Whatever the reason behind her death; there are many who will feel the effects for years to come. It is a huge loss to 2018 and a reminder of what a sensational talent has left the world. I know there will be nobody like Dolores O’Riordan again: that same mix of incredible intensity and knee-buckling beauty. In a sad week that has seen the death of an incredible artist; we have the fantastic back-catalogue that will…

IN THIS PHOTO: Dolores O'Riordan in 2016

LIVE forever.

FEATURE: The New Astrology: Which Artists Can Make a Genuine Change This Year?

FEATURE:

 

The New Astrology

IN THIS PHOTO: Sigrid/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Which Artists Can Make a Genuine Change This Year?

__________

THIS is a sort of music Winterwatch where I look…

IN THIS PHOTO: Tom Grennan/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

around and search for the artists who will (start to) make an impression. They are not brand-new but, as I search for the artists who will make an early impression on the year; tune-yards are going to be ringing in the ears. Merrill Garbus is, essentially, tune-yards and, since 2009, she has been making some of the most innovative music around, Bird-Brains was picked up by 4AD in 2009 but, when she moved to California in 2011; WHOKILL was recorded and by 2014, with bassist Nate Brenner in association – Nikki Nack made a huge impression and signalled her out as one of the finest voices on the scene.

IN THIS PHOTO: tune-yards/PHOTO CREDIT: Eliot Lee Hazel

The latest record – and brilliantly-titled at that! – I Can Feel You Creep Into My Private Life – is out on Friday and is promising to be something special. Its title derives from a meditation course Garbus was enrolled in – one relating to race and white privilege. Songs like ABC 123 have gained a lot of airplay and, before tune-yards tour the U.K. in March; we have an extraordinary album to look forward to. Lyrics (on the record) explore everything from race to cultural appropriation: downbeat, serious lyrics paired with upbeat, sprite compositions.

IN THIS PHOTO: shame/PHOTO CREDIT: Dan Kendall for Loud and Quiet Magazine

Shame are, despite their name, another act that are going to kick this year off with a bang. They refute the idea the leather jacket-wearing, womanising Rockstar should be purged – it is a notion best left in the past; reserved to previous decades. Shame are an angry and fuelled band but you will not find them assuming the mantle of a beer-swilling, drug-taking band. There is, as they have said, an attraction to that lifestyle: they make music to reach the people and know modern life is not like that now. Money is tight and bands like them cannot afford that kind of existence – not that this is a bad thing! Taking inspiration from the likes of The Fall and Iggy Pop; the music you get from the Londoners is ferocious but has depth and plenty of hidden layers.

One Rizla is a song that outlines their lack of concern with reputation and technical proficiency – “My voice ain’t the best you’ve heard…But do I give a fuck?” Like tune-yards; shame are a force we need in music. The former is more about social consciousness and those weirdly original and unexpected songs: Shame are more direct and a band that summons rebellion and power – commodities that have been missing in the music industry for a while. The quintet formed when they were in their mid-teens and would play the same sort of scene as their London mates – going down their own path and establishing themselves in their own rights. Expect the boys to go far!

IN THIS PHOTO: Skelhorn/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

There is a lot of excitement around female artists – especially in Pop – and I shall come to a few I am very excited about. Skelhorn is someone who has been compared to older-days singers like Elvis Presley. He is from Liverpool and, whilst these are early days; there is a real buzz around him. That striking voice gets into the heart and he is someone who will be a big star before too long. He has been performing since the age of fourteen and been recognised by local stations (around Liverpool). He has performed and toured with three different bands and now, stepping aside, he is picking up the veins and embarking on a solo career.  There are some positive vibes projected his way: make sure you check out Skelhorn and why he is being tipped as a future talent of serious note.

PHOTO CREDIT: Sudan Archives/PHOTO CREDIT: Theo Jemison

Sudan Archives is a twenty-three-year-old violinist/vocalist who writes and plays all her own music. She is a self-taught musician and, inspired by Sudanese fiddlers; R&B artists and West African rhythms – you get a brew that swirls around the brain and strikes the heart. She grew up in Ohio and, as she said, messed around with instrument around the house. Noting how violinists and fiddlers in Africa played; she wondered whether this style could be blended with Electronic music.

That fusion of Folk and Electronic was a real turning point for the America. Critics are raving – and it is easy to see why! The talented artist mixes beats – laid down on her iPad – and pairs that with traditional, warmer instruments. Sudan Archives moved to L.A. aged nineteen and has won plaudits from some big sources. Her E.P., Sudan Archives, is a confident and nuanced work from someone who is going to make a huge mark in 2018.

IN THIS PHOTO: Sigrid/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Sigrid has recently been named by BBC as their artist to watch this year. The announcement came as a shock to the Nordic artist. Debut single, Don’t Kill My Vibe, was a revelation – it gathered millions of Spotify streams and saw her a much-demanded name on the circuit scene. There is already talk she can go on and be headliners at Glastonbury one day – she has already played at the festival. Notable highlights from 2017, like playing Rockslide (Denmark) in June, have seen her music go far and wide. Thousands have seen her perform and everyone comes away with the same impression: they are witnessing someone who will go very far.

She has released a four-track E.P.; got the ear of BBC; been played on our best national radio stations – topping numerous ‘ones to watch’ polls and proof the Pop/Alternative music of 2018 is going to be a very different affair. Sigrid will play U.K. dates in March and head to Coachella in April. Since her debut single in April; that rise has been steep and heady. Who knows how far she will go?!

IN THIS PHOTO: Madison Beer/PHOTO CREDIT: Factice Magazine

Madison Beer is a Pop artist who personifies the notion of a modern-day star: she is a huge hit on Instagram and has a legion of fans. The teenager is not your average Bubblegum-Pop purveyor: she produces more mature, deep music that is backed by that honeyed, alluring voice. From chilled and floaty to zesty and precise – her music switches direction and is hard to predict. I know she will make big steps this year and, in a Pop market that is filling fast; Madison Beer stands out and has the chance to make a real difference. That fanbase, tied to her natural songwriting ability, means she will have a very busy year. I have been following her work for a little while but, from song-to-song; I can hear a development and evolution. She is growing stronger and more confident; festival and gig requests are coming in fast – I would expect worldwide dates to follow through this year.

IN THIS PHOTO: Zoee/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Zoee has worked with Pub-Pop pioneers Rhythm Method but is an artist who stands alone. The Londoner performer mixes her stunning vocals with electronic templates; there is a balance of the melancholic and minimal – a veritable blend of contrasting emotions and polemic sonics. Her debut E.P., Insecure, was a triumph and picked up terrific reviews. Songs look at everything from loneliness, miscommunication and the perils of love. One can relate to her music but never get bogged down and bored – it is always engaging, fresh and surprising. There are a lot of great female Pop artists coming through but the ones I am highlighting are beyond the limits of the mainstream. I am excited how Zoee progresses and where she can head this year. Her live performances are being highlighted: a natural performer who can hold an audience in her palm.

IN THIS PHOTO: Julia Michaels/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Julia Michaels is not as new as some of the artists I have mentioned – but that does not mean she should be excluded. She was a huge success in 2017 and has already been nominated for a Grammy; written a string of hits and co-written for some of the biggest artists on the planet (including Justin Bieber). That husky, chocolate voice makes every word resonate and stun; the lyrics stray from the ordinary and cliché; the songs cross boundaries and subvert expectations. She is someone who can talk about lust and heartache and do so in a very new and unexpected manner.

She, like Baywaves, Moaning and Tom Grennan, are artists I am expecting to do good things. I have been reluctant to back Grennan but feel, the more I hear him; there is an artist that has a unique soul and a voice that warrants further attention. There are few male solo artists that stick in my mind at the moment. Grennan differs from the pack and manages to avoid the trappings of a lot of hot-tipped artists: writing in a very safe and cautious way. His songs are bold and are far stronger than a lot of the new music being produced. Baywaves are an act I am especially keen to promote. 2017 was a busy one for them and it saw many new fans flock their way. Gliss was released back in June: a stunning single that, to me, signalled their best work. Down 4 U followed and, like Gliss, got right into the soul. There are jangly guitars, hazy melodies and Pop vibes. It is a wonderful concoction that will see the Spanish group pick up awards and gig requests.

IN THIS PHOTO: Baywaves/PHOTO CREDIT: Neelam Khan Vela 

Abra Cadabra is as magic and surprising as his name suggests. The Tottenham M.C.is turning heads and offering something daring and bold. He has already teamed with industry-leading acts like Kojo Funds - and look set to set this year alight. I am looking out at the Urban scene and wondering which artists can come through - speak the truth and lead the people. There is something real and uncomplicated regarding Abra Cadabra’s ethos and ego – he is a pure artist doing his own thing; not willing to compromise an succumb to the lure of the mainstream.

IMAGE CREDIT: Getty Images

BASSETTE excites me and, like Sigrid and other stunning female artists; the hype and attention is warranted. She has a voice that has been compared to Amy Winehouse and, like the departed legend; there are hopes she could be an international star. These are early days but I know BASSETTE will go from strength to strength. Her music is among the finest I have heard in a while; that voice fills the mind and takes you somewhere magical. Another female artist I tip to do big things, and has been garnering great praise, is Catherine McGrath. She is a talented Country artist from Northern Ireland and has had a very successful past couple of years. I feel her best work is ahead and, as we look to the musicians who will do wonderful things. Her clear voice and instant songs have seen her tipped as a potential crossover artist. I expect her to go a long way and, perhaps, get a lot of U.S. dates. I am aware of what she can do but, as she gets more gigs; that sound get stronger and more astonishing.

IN THIS PHOTO: Catherine McGrath/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

MALIKA is another wonderful artist whose track, Falling (with Snakehips), was a classic R&B cut. She has, since then, released the stunning single, Run. The song featured on the E.P., Songs About C, and suggested what is to come this year. She enjoyed modest acclaim in 2017 but, as the music has had a chance to bed-in; I expect more gigs to come her way. I know she will continue to grow as the year goes on; ascend and climb the ladder and show why she is one of the most exceptional young artists around. There are a lot of great artists who are doing the same sort of thing but, when one thinks of MALIKA, you are not reminded of anyone else. I am pumped and ready to see where she can head through this year.

IN THIS PHOTO: MALIKA/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Kymberley Kennedy projects the same sort of emotions in me. Her music is really starting to gain traction and, as we progress; I expect her to get some rather notable acclaim. I can see her picking up awards and being invited to play festivals. It is exciting discovering an artist you just know will be around for many years. Few have the same passion and drive as Kennedy; the songs are exceptionally physical and emotive. You cannot listen to her with a lazy and undedicated mind: you go in with a willing heart and submit the sheer grace and potency. I am going to follow her and back everything she does.

IN THIS PHOTO: Kymberley Kennedy/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

My final act to highlight is FALSE HEADS. They are a band I interviewed last year – I know full well what they can do! Iggy Pop has already fallen for their charms and, when you listen to the Gutter Press E.P., you understand why! It is a loud and vivacious Punk offering from four lads who have a lot to say. As the world gets more fraught and unbalanced; I expect them to have a much larger role in music. It is an opportunity-laden time when they can join the likes of IDLES – another band who can get the jaw dropped – and conquer the festival circuit.

IN THIS PHOTO: FALSE HEADS/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

There is a big demand for bands who go beyond the conventional and summon something genuinely thrilling. No danger with these guys: every song bursts out of the speakers and motivates the body! I am excited by their progress already but know they go a long way still and mark themselves as one of the best British bands around. Ensure you follow them as they throw down the gauntlet this year!

I have collected a few names that are being tipped and being featured on those ‘ones to watch in 2018’ features – those that deserve the acclaim and look set to add their voices to the year. A lot of the pollmakers’ predications, I feel, are flawed or a little rash. They might proclaim an artist and then, a few months down the line; one finds the shine and promise has faded. It can be hard deciding which artists are going to do big things. These are a smattering of musicians to look out for - but there are more worth looking out for – I will throw the spotlight on as many as possible! I feel 2018 is going to be one of the strongest years for music in a long while.

IN THIS PHOTO: Yonaka/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

The solo market is still (very much) the champion: great bands are coming through but they are not getting as much time as solo acts. That is the way it’s been for a while but there stunning bands – from Anteros and Yonaka to Duke of Wolves – I have been following a while and know how good they are. The predictions thrown out by the newspapers/websites hold sway and truth. There are some great artists coming out of those articles that, I hope, will get the recognition they have been working for. It will be exciting none the less and, when it comes to some promising artists worth getting behind; the artists you see above are well worth…

IN THIS PHOTO: Duke of Wolves/PHOTO CREDIT: Violet Verigo

HANGING your hat on.  

FEATURE: Just How Should I Feel Today? The 'Blue Monday' Playlist

FEATURE:

 

Just How Should I Feel Today?

ALL PHOTOS: Unsplash

The 'Blue Monday' Playlist

__________

TODAY is, as we all know, the dreaded ‘Blue Monday’.

it is meant to be the most depressing/unhappy day of the year; one of the least productive and gloomiest; where we all hunker and retreat...waiting for that Tuesday relief! We are past the Christmas period and the festivities - and no longer reminiscing about the start of the New Year. It is that awkward period of the month when we are past all the good stuff and do not have a lot to look forward to. Rather than wallow and spend the final hours of the day sad: I feel a burst of uplifting music is a good way to end this Monday with a bang! I have compiled a collection of songs that aim to raise a smile and get the body moving; shake those blues away and ensure the year’s unhappiest day is put to bed…

WITH positivity. 

FEATURE: The Long Fade: How the ‘Greatest Hits’ Album Has Become Near-Obsolete

FEATURE:

 

The Long Fade

IMAGE CREDIT: Getty Images

How the ‘Greatest Hits’ Album Has Become Near-Obsolete

__________

THIS notion has been prompted by a feature I saw…

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

in The Guardian over the weekend. It explored the idea that, in the modern time, the concept of the artist/band ‘Greatest Hits’ album has all but died. It is interesting looking into it as, with streaming and the way music is marketed, people are listening to songs over and over for free. If you consider the last greatest hits collection you bought: I am guessing it might be a few years old by now. I think the last time I raced to get one was when Radiohead released theirs back in 2008. The eighteen-track L.P. featured music from their finest albums and, as a single source of Radiohead music; it was pretty authoritative and pleasurable! I did, of course, have a few of their albums up until that point – The Bends and OK Computer; Kid A and Amnesiac; Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows – but it was good to have all the best hits on a single disc. Some had the temerity to claim the so-called ‘best of’ was not quite up to the mark – there were notable omissions from the pack. I wonder whether that is a problem when launching your greatest hits collection: fans will be divided and there is never a consensus of what constitutes the ‘very best’. Given the fact that, in 2008, Radiohead were being talked about as near-finished and past their best days – was it a move to rekindle interest in their work? 2007’s In Rainbows was a triumph, mind: a tight and lean album of beautiful love songs that showed the band were in a league of their own.

IMAGE CREDIT: Getty Images

Those who harked back to their classic albums – The Bends and OK Computer – considered In Rainbows another twist away from their best days – although In Rainbows was to be their last album that contained guitars (in a major role). The material on Radiohead’s greatest hits collection satisfied many but there are always niggles when it comes to rejecting certain songs. You cannot please anyone so I wonder, because of that, there can ever be a true ‘greatest hits’ collection? It is an interesting debate and one that divides fans. The labels and compilers are pretty savvy when it comes to collating the material – they are not going to deliberately exclude great songs and annoy the fans. I wonder whether, given the fact we can get any song at our fingertips; it is impossible pleasing those who want, in this situation, the cream of the crop?! A couple of other considerations – when looking at the greatest hits album – is what they represent. There are a few issues: the oxymoronic qualities; whether a band/artist, when releasing this album, is ending their career; a transfer to another record label – a lot of the releases are seasonal and designed to get a bit of quick revenue. You can argue whether some artists (who release greatest hits) have actually done enough to warrant that acclaim. I think Snow Patrol released their version of greatest hits – one would struggle to name a few songs of theirs that really remain in the mind!

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

There was a time when the biggest artists released greatest hits collections; some, if their catalogue was wide enough, produced a few volumes. It seems, at a time when there are fewer long-lasting acts; the idea of that definitive album is a thing of the past. You can talk about quality and whether a certain artist has enough decent material to warrant a greatest hits album. A lot of artists, when they put these albums out, are switching record labels and, in an attempt to get their money’s worth; the label will throw together a handful of the best songs for the fans. That sounds cynical but, in a way, it is a way of celebrating the end of one phase of their career – before embarking on the next part. Others see these albums as a way of signalling the end of a career. In Radiohead’s case; there were genuine fears they were bowing out of music. That is not the case as, in the decade since their greatest hits record; they have released two further albums – 2016’s A Moon Shaped Pool is considered one of their best. In a lot of cases, it can be the impetus to reignite the spark and try something new – almost like shedding the skin or seeing how far they have come. In a lot of incidents; artists are nearing the end of the road so, in one final fling, they release their ‘best of’ to their fans.

IMAGE CREDIT: Getty Images

One of the funniest things about the greatest hits record is why artists feeling the need to put a new song into the pack. Technically, if you are giving fans your best songs; how can a brand-new song constitute as ‘greatest’ – as it is foreign and, in most cases, weak! Blur did this in 2000 when they added Music Is My Radar to the package – a song that, whilst not weak, was not exactly as statuesque as some of their classic material. Given the fact a band like Blur has more than enough genius material in their locker; it makes me wonder why they needed to toss in a new song?! Maybe a standalone single would be better; putting it on their next album? To me, that kind of inclusion signals a downturn in fortunes – they want to show they still have new material coming out but not confident it will resonate. Again, like Radiohead, Blur have put out two albums since their greatest hits – The Magic Whip was released back in 2015.  I am not sure what the fate of Blur is but, in 2000, there was an inkling things were a bit strained and not as they were. It is okay putting out these collections but is the one-shop approach to your best material an opportunity to get more money from your fans?! A lot of these albums, usually, are released near Christmas – where people are spending more – and there is that seasonable aspect. The past few years have seen fewer greatest hits collections come out, mind.

PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

That makes me wonder whether people are favouring studio records – or if streaming has made the notion (of greatest hits) no longer financially viable. It can be quite hard asking people to shell out more money for an album that is, in essence, available on other albums. The reason I snapped up Blur and Radiohead’s greatest hits is the fact I wanted that definitive, classic collection – even if, like many, I felt there were some obvious exclusions. It is good having all the best songs together without the need to skip tracks. I feel, however, a band/artist’s best work is valid only when released in the context of a studio album. I like hearing the big hits – but only when they are surrounded by those lesser songs. It is goof building up to that epic song: the emotional hit you get cannot be described. It can be quite odd hearing all those songs from different time periods and forming a single experience. The scattershot, fragmented nature of the greatest hits album means a lot of people are sticking with studio albums. In some cases, in the past, there was that aim to get people interested in an artist – the greatest hits album was a good way of getting new fans involved and building up a new base. I feel, however, there are some artists that warrant that ‘best of’ album.

IMAGE CREDIT: Getty Images

I wonder whether, given the changing nature of consumption, people will demand single-disc collection. I feel services like Spotify are more popular because, essentially, anyone can collate their own ‘greatest hits’ – any artist from across time. There is something pleasing having a C.D./vinyl where you have the best hits of your favourite act. I remember the pleasure of owning The Beatles’ 1 – where all their number-one songs were put together. They have their ‘red’ and ‘blue’ albums – the former had all their earliest hits; the latter took it from 1965-ish to the end of their career. Maybe the nostalgia I feel is best left in the past: modern music is much more pick-and-choose. People do buy albums, of course, but we live in a time when playlists are everywhere. One can easily assemble their own assortment of songs so there is less demand for the traditional greatest hits packages. I can think of a few modern artists who, in time, should put out a greatest hits C.D./vinyl – I would like to see one from Queens of the Stone Age and Arcade Fire – but, apart from that; I am not sure whether any spring to mind. It is those legendary artists whose work needs to get to the next generation – they are primed for a single/double-disc honour. Perhaps it is a sign of a past time but I, for one, think there is something sad regarding the decline of those best of/greatest hits albums. Maybe we will see them come back in but, as digital demands dictate direction; perhaps there is no way back. Thinking about it has, at least, compelled me to spin me the greatest hits albums from Blur, The Beatles and Kate Bush…

 PHOTO CREDIT: Unsplash

I might dig out Radiohead’s whilst I am at it!

FEATURE: The BRIT Awards 2018: The Nominations Playlist

FEATURE:

 

The BRIT Awards 2018

IN THIS PHOTO: Dua Lipa/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

The Nominations Playlist

__________

EMMA Willis announced the nominations for…

IN THIS PHOTO: Emma Willis/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images/Next

this year’s BRIT Awards yesterday. The biggest revelation from those announcements was the fact Dua Lipa is the most-nominated artist. She has been nominated for a total of five categories: Best Female Solo Artist, Best Breakthrough Act; Best Single (for New Rules), British Album of the Year (for Dua Lipa) and British Artist Video of the Year (New Rules). It is a great haul for the newcomer – who enjoyed a stellar 2017. She scooped a rare number-one for New Rules last year – and the first female artist to do so since Adele’s Hello in 2015 – and impressed critics with her eponymous debut album. That record boasted instant Pop songs with big choruses and plenty of hooks. It is not a surprise to see her gain so many nominations: Ed Sheeran got four nods and, given the year he had (last year); it is a shock to see him overtaken. The ceremony will take place on 21st February and we will see whether Dua Lipa can win all five awards. I have seen the categories and I would expect her to walk away with three awards: Best Breakthrough Act, Best Single and Best Artist Video of the Year. New Rules broke ground – and rules! – so it should be the odd-on-favourite to win the singles category. The video for New Rules is not as innovative as her latest (IDGAF). She should still walk away with that prize - as it is an integral part of the record-breaking song. Stormzy’s Gang Signs & Prayer is, rightly, nominated in the album category – I fancy that to pip Dua Lipa – whilst Jessie Ware seems like a more sensible choice for the Best Female Solo Artist award.

Sheeran will probably win the Best British Male Solo Artist award but I do not fancy him to win any of the others – he has an album, song and video nomination, too. It will be a big night for Dua Lipa: it will be an important one for female artists. In a year where forecasters have predicted a Pop storm; the balance-shift of genres and genders – it could not be a male-heavy ceremony that put the spotlight on someone like Ed Sheeran. Let’s hope the hype and buzz translate to awards for Dua Lipa. She is an example of a modern Pop artist with more guts and vocal variation than most of her peers. Even though she has an army of producers and writers helping her music get to the masses: I fancy she will step out on her own in future albums and establish herself as a stunning songwriter. The night will see Ed Sheeran, Stormzy and Sam Smith play – Rag’n’Bone Man is tipped to play, in addition (he is nominated in three categories). Dua Lipa and Foo Fighters will play at the awards; with President Trump gaining a record level of unpopularity in the U.K., many hope that will see the fiercest and boldest nominees (Liam Gallagher and Stormzy) spout-off and let him have it!

IN THIS PHOTO: Liam Gallagher/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

Say you want about the BRIT Awards – they are not seen as credible and relevant as other options; too focused on the mainstream and Pop – but there is a good mix of artists on show! I am pleased for artists like Dua Lipa but more interested in other acts who have gained nominations. Maybe Dua Lipa will be crowned best female but she is up against stellar competition: Kate Tempest, Laura Marling; Paloma Faith and Jessie Ware are all strong and popular artists who could win it. The British males on show will include Liam Gallagher, Stormzy; Loyle Carner and Ed Sheeran (with Rag’n’Bone Man). I hope Loyle Carner wins as I loved his album, Yesterday’s Gone, and feel he is one of the strongest newcomers on the block. Let’s hope Wolf Alice win in the British Group segment. The xx and Gorillaz are worthy adversaries but Royal Blood (a duo rather than a group; overrated) and London Grammar (disappointing second album) should be seen as outsiders – although I have a feeling Royal Blood might win! Those are the only categories where the ‘cooler’ and more credible British artists could get a say. When it comes to albums, singles and videos – that is likely to go to a Pop act. Sampha is nominated as one of the best breakthrough acts: Dua Lipa is likely to get that, one would imagine.

IN THIS PHOTO: HAIM/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

The international nominations always excite me – even though the BRIT Awards are noted for recognising British artists! I would think Kendrick Lamar will scoop International Male (Beck and Childish Gambino are strong rivals) whilst the group category has Arcade Fire and HAIM among its nominees. Lorde and Björk are nominated for International Female and, whilst I feel Björk should win every award she is up for – I was more impressed by Lorde’s sophomore record (Melodrama) and feel she warrants the gong. It is good to see a lot of female musicians nominated; although, British Breakthrough Act has one female nominee (Dua Lipa); Dua Lipa is the only woman nominated in the album category – HAIM are the only all-female group nominated for International Group. The O2 will play host to the event and, when the winners to the ten categories are announced; we should see some pretty special happenings – I know Dua Lipa will have a big night regardless of the number of awards she takes home. I really would like artists like Liam Gallagher and Stormzy to whip up some excitement and controversy – the thing becomes too boring and conservative if someone is not swearing, throwing stuff around and slandering a politician! It will be an exciting night and, as the Playlist below shows; the music nominated is certainly varied and cross-genre! Let us see who goes away with the most statues on the night. The BRIT Awards always create some sort of news so, as 2018 has just got underway; I hope one (or more) artist can…

IN THIS PHOTO: Stormzy/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

DO something special.  

FEATURE: ‘Generation MTV’: Revisiting a Time When the Iconic Music Channel Ruled the World

FEATURE:

 

‘Generation MTV’

IMAGE CREDIT: Crush Creative/Behance

Revisiting a Time When the Iconic Music Channel Ruled the World

__________

I promise this will be the last of my pieces…

IMAGE CREDIT: Getty Images

that take a very long, hard look at music’s past. It seems illogical that in the ultra-modern, fast-and-frantic arena of modern life there is not at least one music channel. That is unfair because we still have MTV and VH1! I will mention them but I am thinking about the way we digest music and how life gets away from us. There are so many shows across the board and channels coming out of our backsides. We have YouTube and websites that offer video content; there are countless T.V. channels and you can get anything you want with the touch of a button! It is all impressive and means the average consumer is spoilt for choice – one can get abreast of all the latest music happenings and news. I have been thinking about the way we consume and how gigantic the market has become. Music is growing all the time so it is only right T.V. and the Internet should catch up – to ensure all the data and visuals get to our eager eyes. MTV still exists, as I said, but it is a station that has a different role. Nowadays, there are music videos played on it but they do a lot of original programming. It seems like the majority of their content is some form of reality (T.V.) show – with a tenuous musical foundation.

IN THIS PHOTO: A promotional shot from the MTV show, Ex on the Beach/PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images

You can, if inclined, watch a show about Hip-Hop lovers and spurned girlfriends; U.S. upcoming artists and their interesting/highly staged lives. We have entered a time when ‘reality’ takes the form of scripted domestic dramas masquerading as real-life events. VH1 does the same and it seems like the words ‘music T.V.’ are fungible. It need only have a vague concept of music to qualify for a spot on the channel. The stations do have time for new music but it is galling seeing so many shows – not revolving around musicians and albums – taking so much time up. Maybe music has changed so much the nature of demand means sound has overtaken vision. We can get the latest videos on YouTube - so there is not a great need to see them on the T.V. I guess that is the consequence of an age that has fostered so much technology and machinery: we do not rely on more conventional options for our content anymore. I know MTV still holds a valuable place in music but, as other services have usurped its position; it is worth remembering a time when the station was the pinnacle of the music industry. It was in everyone’s homes - artists made videos just so they could get on the station. It was a huge time - and one that leads me to the start...

MTV was launched in 1981 and arrived at a time when stars like Michael Jackson were looking for an outlet. He is someone I will return to but, as the decade was starting to heat up; this exciting and new station arrived. It was, essentially, video jockeys launching the latest video – they would lead us into a track and then, like magic, the biggest video from our favourite artists. Nothing as youth-orientating and cutting edge had come into the world to that point. The station helped launch the career of artists like Guns N’ Roses and Michael Jackson. Jackson, in fact, caused controversy simply by being himself. The notion of putting a black artist on a popular channel seemed like a mistake waiting to happen. If it were to happen at this time there would be an outcry and the station would be in serious trouble – it was not seen as a huge deal by the public in the early-1980s. The only reason Jackson became a fixture on the station was the success of videos like Billie Jean. The iconic video resonated and got into the minds of the population. After such resistance and racism: the public reacted and, before long, that led to the inclusion of the fourteen-minute video for Thriller. Jackson helped open the door for black artists like Lionel Richie – acts who would have struggled to get their videos featured simply because of their skin colour. The first video on MTV was The Buggles’ Video Killed the Radio Star and, in 1981, the idea of a music video was a strange thing.

Rock bands and idols were given a platform to put their music on. Bryan Adams, Blondie and Prince were featured; The Police, The Cars and Duran Duran were stars of the 1980s airtime. MTV was a place where classic Rock acts and newcomers could mingle alongside one another. The fact videos could get to the masses meant artists were taking risks. Michael Jackson’s choreographed promotional meant acts like Madonna and Kate Bush became more daring in their videos – the latter’s video for Running Up That Hill (A Deal with God) features a beautifully sumptuous and fantastic dance between Kate Bush and a male dancer. The fact artists of colour (color) had to struggle to get screen-time before 1983 – when the barriers were truly down – was a mixture of prejudice and the original notion for MTV: a Rock channel that was going to play the best bands around (who were mostly white artists). The early days were fraught and exciting but the 1980s beginnings did create landmarks. A safe-sex campaign was launched in 1985 and the rising AIDS epidemic meant a mainstream station took action to connect with its young audience – prompting them to use contraceptives and be aware of the dangers. Something like that would be radical in 2018: the fact a national campaign ran on a popular music T.V. channel was a huge move.

It was not until the 1990s when the channel began to really forge into the consciousness... Public figures like Bill Clinton became fixtures – helping him become President of the U.S.A. – so the station gained a huge sense of purpose and power. MTV also featured – in the 1980s – its annual Spring Break shows (starting in 1986) and broadcast feed from Live Aid in 1985. It was a multi-discipline station that was engaging in popular culture but did so with a serious bent. The station kept abreast with every wave and trend in music. By the early-1990s; a combination of Pop-friendly and Hard-Rock acts were featured: Michael Jackson, 2 Unlimited and New Kids on the Block could often be seen in the same segment. Rappers like Tupac and Snoop Dogg were given exposure and it meant genres like Hip-Hop and Rap could get to the masses. It was exciting seeing the full spectrum of 1990s music get airing on MTV. If anything; music television is more compartmentalised and segregated than it was in the 1990s. The station was all about putting quality videos up: there was not the viewpoint artists did not fit in; that it was all about Pop/mainstream stuff. Videos, because of MTV’s rise, became more adventurous, funny and creative. Directors like Michel Gondry, David Fincher and Anton Corbijn showcased videos for the likes of Madonna, Nirvana and Beck.

It was a place where inventive creatives could push boundaries and dazzle viewers. As Grunge swept and artists like Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains took the reins; they were wrestling with popular stars like Tori Amos, PM Dawn and Björk – it was a magic time for music videos! The 120 Minutes show featured Alternative sounds Alternative Nation focused on underground videos. Older stars could find a place but it meant their music was becoming more inventive and bold – so they could keep up with the younger generation. Consider an artist like Peter Gabriel launching the Sledgehammer video in 1986. Few could claim that was anything other than an attempt to make a mark and rival the big names out there. Artists were not sitting back and producing limp, uninspired videos. From A-ha’s Take on Me to Madonna’s steamy and provocative videos of the 1980s/1990s – it was a time when artists were throwing their all into videos. That was mirrored in the music itself - and that relationship was part of the reason the scene changed and strengthened. Artists had another outlet – apart from radio – where they could speak to the public. By 1995, the station was playing over a-third fewer videos than ever. The ‘novelty’ of only videos meant people were going elsewhere. The introduction of social media and YouTube – the following decade – meant the station had to modernise and adapt.

It was inevitable the station would slump at some point but that near-fifteen-year period of rule helped change music and redefine the music video as we know it. So many young artists today source MTV as inspirations: seeing it as a youngster and those artists inspire and campaign. It was an exciting time and, even towards the end of the 1990s; there was still an important role for the station. A great article in Vanity Fair looked at the rise of MTV and testimony from people who were around at the time – and what it was like being part of the phenomenon:

“Billy Idol, musician: Radio guys would take one look at my picture with the spiky hair and say, “Punk-rocker. Not playing him.” Then MTV airs my videos, and kids start calling up radio stations saying, “I want to hear Billy Idol!” It really broke the thing wide open. We’d never touched the charts, and the next minute we had a Top 10 album. It was amazing. Nobody’d ever noticed me before. Now I’m walking down the street, and people are yelling “Billy!”

Stan Cornyn: It was reported back to us that records were selling in certain cities without radio airplay. We asked “Why?” and it turned out that there were music videos playing on MTV. An act like Devo is dancing around in their funny masks and stuff like that—and they take off in a market where nothing else is happening. You got to be an idiot not to say, “Something is happening here, let’s pay attention to this.”

Marcy Brafman: I knew we were doing something right when I gave my dad an MTV T-shirt. He’d wear it, and the kids would want to mow his lawn for free”.

IMAGE CREDIT: Getty Images

Despite the fact the MTV rollercoaster made history: labels and bosses were not impressed by its debut in 1981. It was not the most fashionable idea, and so, an advertising initiative was pitched. There was scepticism – but something had to be done:

“Les Garland: George comes rolling in with his easel and says, “Garland, who does MTV belong to?” Warner Amex. Wrong. “Pittman, who does MTV belong to?” He’s got this trick-question thing going with everyone in the room. Finally he says, “MTV is the color-TV phenomenon, you guys. If you are the kid on the block with the first color TV, all the other kids come to your house to watch it. Same with MTV. It’s that cool. It’s theirs, the kids’, it belongs to them. I came up with a campaign for a breakfast cereal called Maypo. We had sports stars like Mickey Mantle and Wilt Chamberlain saying, ‘I want my Maypo!’ This campaign is going to be a bunch of rock stars saying, ‘I want my MTV!’ Garland,” he goes, “can you get Mick Jagger to say that?” I go, “I think so.” He goes, “That’s who we got to get first. Mick Jagger is the most important rock star in the world. If we can get him to do it, the rest of them will be easy.” And I go, “I fucking love it”.

The rest is history - but I can understand why it was not fashionable and marketable at the start. When big artists started putting their voices to the cause, and genres/big artists mixed with one another – it became a hit and embed itself into the fabric of popular culture.

I wonder whether we could ever see another MTV again; something that captured the mood and flavour of the times. If the station is, essentially, a portal for poor reality shows and the odd video here and there – back in the 1980s and 1990s; it was a truly revolutionary station that opened up music and helped launch the careers of some legendary artists. The fact they gave a voice to black artists (eventually) was groundbreaking; showcasing myriad genres on the same station was unheard of. It made directors more inventive and reactive; artists made their music more ambitious and controversial – just so they could put that into a stunning music video. The world of music has changed but there is still a desire for a music station that pulls together old and new; the freshest promotional clips and the classics we all know and love. Maybe that will not happen on MTV but who knows: perhaps a new station will crop up that mixes videos with features and spots; news, music shows and documentaries. That would be awesome and I, for one, would do anything to see it happen. Dire Straits talked about – on Money for Nothing – about free chicks and money for nothing. You can forget all of that: all I really want is…

IMAGE CREDIT: Crush Creative/Behance

MY MTV!  

FEATURE: Free Billboards Outside, Ebbing Misery: Is It Possible to Have a Career in Music Journalism and Retain Financial Security?

FEATURE:

 

Free Billboards Outside, Ebbing Misery

ALL PHOTOS: Unsplash

Is It Possible to Have a Career in Music Journalism and Retain Financial Security?

__________

BEING working-class and a ‘certain age’ might preclude me…

from most of the best-paid jobs in music. A few of my earliest pieces this year revisit ideas I have tossed around before – one would hope my powerful and inspiration pieces (scan for irony!) would affect some sort of change! I am in the position, like many aspiring writers, where we want to project influence but are unable to – relying on our own resources and limitations of the free press. There is a definite austerity in music journalism that means the purse-strings are tighter than ever before. Gone are the heady days of NME when they were the must-read publication for the music masses. There are paid, quality music magazines about but fewer people are buying them. The online nature of music journalism means there are dozens of sites that can offer the reader the of-the-minutes new and events in the world of music. It is hard to produce a profitable magazine/music site and pay employees to. With rumours music journalism is on its last legs – in terms of the big-guns and profitable options – it makes me wonder whether an internship in music is a good thing. That is the only way a lot of people have in. Most labels, magazines and music studios have schemes where, unpaid, a hungry applicant can learn the ropes and get a first-hand look at how the industry operates. If you are lucky, months down the line, that might translate into a paid job.

Even if you are offered a job at the end; the wages can be pretty low and you have to work years before you are racking in anything vaguely impressive. That may be true of every job but there are those, like me, who have been writing for years and feel qualified enough to get a well-paid music job. Is it even possible in 2018?! Unless you are an established writer for a big paper – The Guardian or The Times, for example – you cannot really command too much of a pay-packet. Some of the best music publications around (MOJO among them) have paid positions but they are usually reserved for those with previous experience. Last year, when looking at how journalism still favours the middle-classes; I mooted the reason mainstream music was mostly middle-class was due to a lack of proletariat writers in the media. That may seem like a lazy viewpoint but there are so few working-class idols making music to bond the people – maybe, fearful there are few like-minded souls in the media who will respect and proffer their work. That is why I want to get to a position where I can change attitudes and create a genuine sense of optimism. That may be a bit pretentious but music journalism needs all the ambitious and hard-working journalists it can get.

I suppose the same is true of every musical corner: you need a lot of experience to command the best-paid jobs; there is a lot of grunt-work before you get that breakthrough. A lot of sideways moves and scrimping means the average music journalist might take years to get to a paid position. An interesting article was published in The Guardian back in 2014:

“Though laudably aimed at creating a fairer workplace for budding music industry professionals, the tougher enforcement from HMRC – with no alternative system to help young people gain the experience they need – could potentially be just as detrimental as it is helpful.

At the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts (LIPA), our third-year placements do not fall within the remit of the HMRC's "crackdown" because – crucially – they are an integral part of an undergraduate degree. What worries us, though, is that some music companies will not realise this, and will be frightened off helping young people gain experience by HMRC's aggressive approach.

Fear of penalties

The concern is that, with unclear guidelines and the threat of a £200,000 fine looming above their heads, HR departments of music companies might close the door to all internships, rather than checking whether they are acceptable or not.

At LIPA we have experienced first-hand the problems this sort of ambiguity can pose. Recently we had to respond directly to one company who almost pulled out of a genuine student placement because of concern about how the business might be portrayed in the light of the additional scrutiny focused on work placements.

  We work closely with reputable music companies, and encourage our third-year students to do their research and then approach them independently, to set up a placement they feel comfortable with. At LIPA we regard this experiential learning as a vital element of the course and critically important in helping students to find paid employment when they graduate.

One might question why HMRC has decided specifically to target the music industry when there are, in my opinion, much more prominent offenders. Take for example the prime minister's recent assertion that exploitative treatment of interns is "unacceptable", yet it is reported that his own party offers non-paid intern positions to young graduates across the south of England.

Although there are plenty of reputable organisations out there, a damaging few take advantage of students by giving them menial tasks to complete such as distributing leaflets or picking up litter, and these companies undoubtedly deserve to be both penalised and monitored.

Securing a genuine internship

Young people undertaking any unpaid work experience placement or internship need to make sure they know what they are going to be asked to do before they commit. If a company can't be specific about what will be doing, then the placement should not be accepted.

At LIPA, we advise our students to look carefully at any voluntary opportunity to ensure that it is a genuine, mutually beneficial arrangement. We have also refused to distribute "opportunities" to students where we see that they are really thinly veiled attempts to get free labour.

So how do we begin to combat the problem, so that students and graduates still have access to real working experience without running the risk of exploitation? It's clear that changes are needed, as the current system of unpaid opportunities clearly favours those individuals who have the private resources, or family support, to enable them to work for free for some time”.

I might be taking legal liberties quoting from that article with such ferocity and lack of editing. I am willing to walk a plank of litigation to show that there is another side to the debate. There are some institutions that provide the national minimum wage and treat their interns fairly. I am not suggesting every company rips-off their interns – or they are all treated fairly – but there is that clear danger of working for a company and having to survive on nothing. There are apprentices in every industry but few that offer no money – maybe only the cost of travel. That instantly excludes everyone bar students and the wealthy. If you have enough money in the bank to survive a few months wage-free; an internship might be viable and stress-free. Privileged folk can take that route and students, who do not pay rent and get their parents to fund them, are the most south-after sector. The fact there is very few big-money music publications around means, yes, you might be getting invaluable experience and exposure at your dream company – will that ever lead to anything substantial and worthy?

Maybe a writer like Alexis Petridis can garner a high-five-digit salary but one suspect even he gets less than deserved. He has been in the business for years and would have started at that entry-level position. I worry, years down the line, there will be fewer magazines and websites offering any chances whatsoever. It means those getting into an internship today might not even have a job this time next year. It is a volatile industry but there are some publications and solid foundations – the broadsheets and best magazines – who will survive no matter what happens. There is a lot of music to cover so one cannot say there is a tariff on numbers and scope. The best way to dominate and stand out is to employ more people and diversify your pages. A site/paper like The Guardian could get even further in the industry if they sourced their talent from a larger pool. They could do features on Urban artists and record interviews – get someone who knows their stuff in the field – or do a series of features that look at different sides of music. YouTube and subscription sites mean advertisers may money – you’d suspect a few of the bigger newspapers have fairly deep pockets.

My problem is not necessarily to do with the efficacy and practices of the internships: I am concerned with the class imbalance and how the better-off are gifted more opportunities than those from less-well-off backgrounds. Many sites need a ‘relevant’ degree - which usually means something based around (but not in) music. A lot of writers do not know what they want to do when they are eighteen/nineteen so it is understandable that crystallisation comes a few years down the tracks. Degrees are expensive and many do not want to spend that much money learning a new skill – and accrue that debt and have the burden on their shoulders. There should be better ways around that problem than creating a divide. Middle-class and better-off have better contacts and can get through the industry quicker. They might have connections in the music business or, at the very least, be in a much better financial situation. Money is a big reason so many sites are not offering paid positions; it is a reason why music media is going online (rather than staying in print) – and it is one reason why people fear the industry will be marginalised in years to come. I have hope there will be a sustained interest in music journalism and, for certain outlets, they can remain in profit. I have spoken to a few people who have gone through internships – in record labels – and the only reason they have managed to survive is because they had more money in the bank (or their parents could fund them).

It is a hard industry but, if you find a company that can guarantee a paid job at the end of the internship – grab onto it and ensure you are treated fairly. Those who go through unpaid internships cannot expect to receive minimum wage for a long time after that. It is unfair, regardless of experience, to pay so low for so long. From my viewpoint; I want to work for someone like The Times or The Guardian and bring my working-class background to the role; write about a variety of things and exert some form of influence through my writing. I see there are internships with every publication/site but they are usually three months at the least. That means I would need to commute and pay rent for that time without earning anything. Even if travel is covered; I would be in the red and in trouble. Even after I complete my internship; there is no guarantee a role will come out of it – the idea is to gain experience and the skills needed to get a role in journalism/music. I would make the sacrifice were there a guaranteed job that paid a decent amount. Maybe I am naïve but I feel like there should be a reward for anyone who embarks on an internship. I wonder whether it would be possible to at least offer some financial remuneration to those who go through an internship. Maybe covering the cost of travel in addition to a little bit on top would be more attractive – and mean more would take that risk.

Maybe a better approach into journalism/production etc. is to work in paid jobs that have a similarity to what you want to do. You can work in the media department for someone like BBC or a role that offers something practical and useful. It might not be the most direct way in but you can earn money at least and have that on your C.V. I wonder whether there should be ways one can work in the industry if they take a degree in Music. They could study and then, with that education and knowledge; apply that directly to the role. Rather than wait for the degree to be over, and that debt to mount; offer the writer/talent a paid position so they can combine education and training. Maybe that is pie-in-the-sky but I feel the only way we can attract new and talented writers is by providing paid positions – or ensuring internships guarantee a job (well-paid) at the very end. It may seem like a rather costly way of ensuring we foster the next generation of journalists but, for an industry that is being accused of lacking relevance…

IT may be the only solution.