The new single from Chicago rapper Lupe Fiasco comes under the fitting title Made in the U.S.A. Although the track does not directly link back to the recent election, it would be too much of a coincidence to think that the timing of the release was totally unrelated.
The trap influenced track is a lyrical tour of the state of America from Lupe Fiasco, playing on the familiar sales line in the title. Forget twee merchandise and American pride, the kind of Made in the U.S.A here are gun sales in Georgia, drugs in Arizona and the advent of the KKK across Alabama and Indiana. Making for a hardline litany against hypocrisy and consumerism in the States, there is only a tentative positivity in Fiasco’s final lines; “And I got ?? from every region / And I be speaking starts and stripes /And I be dreaming pledge allegiance”.
Musically, Made in the U.S.A, is as hardline as its lyrical content. Ferocious, but sticking to energetic rather than aggressive, the track rests on the pace of Fiasco’s vocals rather than hectic production. A relatively slow beat sits behind sustained synths and near hymnal melodies. It’s a dramatic backdrop but well suited to the content. Guest vocals from Bianca Sings wind through the middle of the track, rather than building the finale.
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/293023713″ params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”450″ iframe=”true” /]
The single comes ahead of the release of Lupe Fiasco’s anticipated album, Drogas Light. Expected in early 2017, it was confirmed that a previously promised trilogy of new albums for this year hasn’t been possible due to “clearances and mixing issues”. Fiasco will be touring the States throughout December, ahead of his new record.
Image: Getty Images
On many counts 2016 appears to be royally fucked – to use the official terminology. But in one area at least, this year has been an improvement on the previous few. Reports from the music industry over the last twelve months have actually recorded an increase in revenue across the board, and an “explosion” in the global consumption of music. For the first time, digital has overtaken physical sales – and much of that can be attributed to streaming.
Online streaming reported a 45.2% growth in the last year, and premium subscription services also saw massive expansion. In many ways this is good news for the industry, but the record labels who have been struggling to keep up with the changing landscape of music have a few reasons not be entirely grateful just yet.
For a start, the value gap caused by streaming is still a big problem. Despite the increase in consumption, labels and artists still aren’t seeing the same monetary returns that physical sales would afford them. Music has never been more readily available, or cheaper, yet royalties paid out by streaming services remain incredibly low.
The touch of a button. Image via Getty Images
Another reason is the very real possibility that streaming services could assume the record label’s traditional place within the industry. To begin with, platforms like Spotify and Tidal are now the predominant “faces” of exported music. They are the corporations that consumers interact with and rely on for releases. Admittedly, most successful uploads on streaming sites come through under the aegis of a record label, but they have also made it entirely possible for artists to bypass labels completely.
The ability to upload your music to these global platforms does appear to dramatically alter the landscape of unsigned music – although the actuality of exposure to be gained, simply by being present on Spotify, is definitely not as beneficial as it may seem. However, similar opportunities are being taken by established artists as well. Exclusive streaming deals are a fairly recent phenomenon, and see artists almost backtracking from the universality of services which make all music available to all people.
The concept of releasing through a single service holds a striking resemblance to the idea of a record contract. In the past artists would have signed now with a single label, who would be solely responsible to releasing their output in the most powerful formats. Today, musicians like Beyoncé and Frank Ocean are doing exactly that by restricting streaming to just one site. And as streaming services become the strongest sector of the market, this is pretty much the equivalent to a label putting out a CD in the 90’s, or vinyl in the 70’s.
Exclusive streaming deals have heightened the battle for commercial dominance amongst streaming sites. Services are imitating labels in their clamouring to claim the biggest artists and most anticipated releases. So much so, that labels are sensing the threat to their positions in the industry. Frank Ocean’s Blonde sparked panic at Universal Music, as the singer apparently pulled a fast one on the world’s biggest music corporation. It also showed how much of a double edged sword streaming can be for labels, as UMG also reported the most increased revenue from streaming. The company claimed that it “more than offset” the decline of download and physical sales.
Image via Fuse
Having release his “visual album” Endless, Ocean had apparently fulfilled his agreement with Def Jam (a subsidiary of UMG). Leaving him free to effectively self release Blonde, initially through an exclusive deal with Apple Music.What followed was the decision that Universal would no longer offer exclusive deals to album releases via streaming services. It’s an understandable move as Ocean showed exactly how streaming could undercut labels completely, using their own business model.
However, a statement from an insider at Apple Music flagged another interesting point; “There’s one guy who is behind ALL of these campaigns — and he is light years ahead of everyone else. He works intimately with each artist as a creative peer, and develops an amazing plan, this is no simple land grab. He works closer with the artists than labels do.” Despite the secretive tone, the idea that streaming services are beginning to offer services for artists that truly compare with what a label can provide, is pretty powerful.
Streaming services may have started out as technological trends, but we can’t ignore that the actual release of music has become synonymous with the music industry as a whole. Labels may still have the monopoly on the recording industry, but it is the distribution that holds sway. They say that content is king, and that is what streaming owns. Huge amounts of data are held by platforms like Spotify and Google, who own masters, produce their own music and video content and place tracks on taste making playlists.
Playlist monopoly. Image via Spotify
Playlisting could also be considered another area where streaming services are taking over. The role of tastemaker historically sat with record labels and radio. A&R departments were responsible for scouting out the best new talent, and just the labels name to a release was some assurance of its viability. Again, as the point of direct contact with consumers, streaming services are also now responsible for setting trends within music.
Discovery tools and curated playlists have become some of the most powerful tools utilised by streaming sites. One which sees platforms like Spotify holding the upper hand against record labels, as corporations fight over prime exposure and promotion. In recent months industry insiders have confirmed that competition for spots on these playlists is intense, to the point that labels are working on a “pay for play” basis.
In a very real sense, streaming services could well be moving towards the usurping of the record label’s traditional place in the industry. Competing across so many areas, their position as the point of contact with the consumer is incredibly powerful, and that can only be compounded by strong, direct relationships with artists. For years the industry has sought to keep up with changing technology, but it is possible that they missed the boat. This may well be the next cycle of major players in the music business; just as the sheet music publishers of the twentieth century fell to the record labels, streaming services are poised to become this century’s industry leaders.
Image: Alternative Press
Man is not himself when he is his own person. Give him a mask, and he’ll tell you the truth. So said Oscar Wilde, the author of many profound statements. However, this particular theory doesn’t seem to always apply to musicians. The idea of the stage persona is familiar to most music fans; music, past and present, is littered with such characters. But, and I hate to disagree Oscar, many of those artists have used their masks (real and metaphorical) to hide the truth.
In this era of social media, and the “brand of I”, we should be more aware than ever of the importance of image. There is is an interesting contrast between our desire to share every aspect of our lives, and the rigorous filtering of that narrative. Similarly, there is a definite appetite for the inside view on celebrity lifestyles, but we also don’t want to have our illusions shattered.
Musicians are historically the masters of image, in fact an “image” is something artists are advised to cultivate if they want to succeed in the industry. Audiences crave a narrative, a character, as much as they do the music. Fans are more than capable of creating their own myths and legends, but what about the personas that are actively cultivated by artists? We took a look at some musicians who created the convincing narratives, and when they got found out…
The White Stripes
Image via Pop Matters
The duo formed in 1997 and hit the mainstream in 2001 – perfectly matched in their colour scheme and their eccentricity. Jack and Meg White presented an unusual image in a number of ways; a female drummer was rare enough to be notable, they lacked a bass player, had a penchant for candy colour schemes, and they were brother and sister. Or at least, that was the public line from the pair.
Although Jack and Meg as siblings is eminently believable, in 2002 a Detroit newspaper printed a copy of a marriage certificate 1996 that revealed them to be, in fact, husband and wife. Jack, who had taken his wife’s name after their marriage, explained the lie in later years; “It’s funny that people think me and Meg sit up late at night, in front of a gas lamp, and come up with these intricate lies to trick people. If we had presented ourselves in another fashion… how would we have been perceived, right off the bat? When you see a band that is two pieces, husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, you think, ‘Oh, I see…’” He gave it as his opinion that “When they’re brother and sister, you go, ‘Oh, that’s interesting.’ You care more about the music, not the relationship.”
Rumours regarding the pair persisted for years off the back of the revelation; were they actually married? Divorced? Some people even claimed they were siblings who were married. None of this seemed to hurt the duo’s career however, with The White Stripes becoming one of the most acclaimed acts of the last two decades.
Alice Cooper
Image via AZCentral
Rock and metal are perhaps the most fertile genres for artist narratives; traditionally the home of outcasts, the obscene and the unholy. More than one rock star has supposedly arrived on Earth from hell, or outer space… or Phoenix. Like Alice Cooper; a familiar figure with his long hair, whips and black eye make up. A key persona in rock mythology, famed for biting the head off a chicken and gothic torture. Contrary to popular belief, Alice was not only simply for show, but also somewhat accidental.
Born Vincent Furnier, his first foray into music was impersonating The Beatles with fellow cross country teammates for a local talent show. Despite having little musical ability, they officially formed a band named The Spiders, who played songs inspired by artists like the Kinks and The Yardbirds. The idea of “Alice Cooper” was in fact born out of a decision that the band needed a gimmick to gain notoriety.
The son of a preacher, and an active church member, Furnier assumed a complete personality change in his role as Alice. Inspired by Bette Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? and Anita Pallenberg as The Great Tyrant in Babarella, the persona was entirely contrived. In fact, the legend of the chicken head, Alice’s most infamous act, didn’t actually happen.
Somehow, a chicken appeared onstage during a show in 1969. Furnier – who has no experience of farm animals – hurled the bird into the audience, assuming it would fly. Unfortunately it did not, and was subsequently torn to shreds. The following day the press reported how Alice had bitten the chicken’s head off and drank its blood. The story was left unquestioned for decades, after Frank Zappa advised Furnier “Whatever you do, don’t tell anyone you didn’t do it.”
His career was marked by sexual ambiguity, blood and satanic imagery, and the persona eclipsed the truth for many years. But offstage, Alice turned out to be about as mild mannered a rock star as you can find – as his appearance in Wayne’s World somewhat hints at. An actor, golfing celebrity and restauranteur, Furnier also hosts a radio show Nights with Alice Cooper.
Buster Poindexter
Image via Allmusic
Suave, besuited and vibrant, Buster Poindexter is the singer responsible for the overly infectious Hot, Hot, Hot (feeling hot, hot, hot… you know). Released in 1987, from his self-titled album, the sleeve shows a slick Poindexter sipping on a martini and smirking. The record is a mix of calypso, lounge and jazz, with Poindexter’s vocals backed by The Uptown Horns.
No one would have guessed that the tropical tinged Buster Poindexter was in fact New York Dolls frontman David Johansen. The Dolls, contemporaries of Iggy & The Stooges and The Velvet Underground, were seminal in the emerging punk scene. Backcombed hair, bad attitudes and a thrashed out sound, they are considered to be one of the seminal acts of the 1970’s and precursors to punk and glam metal.
Buster Poindexter was quite a change for Johansen after releasing songs like Trash and Personality Crisis. Describing the limitations of being in a pure rock band, Johansen explained how Poindexter gave him the freedom to play the other styles music that were in him. “We used to have the ads in the Village Voice in those days, that’d say, “Tramps. Monday night. Buster Poindexter” — and it didn’t say anything about David Johansen, people would come out of curiosity, or word of mouth and just be able to listen to what I wanted to do, as opposed to having any preconceived expectation about what kind of music it was going to be.”
Seasick Steve
Image via Arts Desk
Out of all our busted myths, Seasick Steve is perhaps the biggest revelation of all. A recent biography of the bluesman found some glaring holes in the singer’s romantic backstory, throwing the charming persona of a rootless, Mississippi hobo into question.
In 2007, the industry crowned a 66 year old vagabond as its best new breakthrough act. With his beard, his southern drawl and a guitar made out of a cigar box and a spatula, Seasick Steve was a heartwarming act. Even his songs told the story of his drifter existence and the hardships he’d faced. With this in mind, biographer Matthew Wright had hoped to uncover more of Steve’s story. What he found was nothing like he’d expected.
Far from spending years as a wandering blues musician, Steve appeared to have actually been firmly ensconced in the music business throughout the 1970’s and and 80’s. According to the myth, Steven Gene Wold was born in 1948, the same year as Dylan and Joan Baez. However, his passport revealed his date of birth in 1951 and his real name to be Steve Leach. The discovery of his true name lead Wright to discover that Leach had been the bass player in the band Shanti during the early 70’s. Devotees of transcendental meditation, who were recording an album at the time that Seasick Steve claimed to have been roughing it on the streets of Paris.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMVGzq4-viA]
After his stint with Shanti, Leach went on to play in a disco band named Crystal Grass. The band penned a number of well known tracks, and Leach certainly performed on their 1976 album. By the end of the decade he was singing backing vocals for the Beach Boys splinter group Celebration, and it didn’t stop there. The 80’s saw him writing and singing for Clean Athletic and Talented, notably the interestingly named track I Love to Touch Young Girls. By the time the 90’s rolled around, Steve had swapped Europe for Washington State and was producing for bands like Modest Mouse.
At this point, the story of Seasick Steve begins in earnest. A bumpy boat ride to Norway inspired the moniker and the persona that would take the unsuspecting music industry by storm. The reason for the deception is still uncertain; why would an artist go to such lengths – especially after a fairly illustrious career? Possibly Leach/Wold concurs with Jack White; sometimes the myth is more interesting than the reality.
Perhaps Wilde was right; by assuming these masks, artists may express the truth of their existence, but maybe they find the truth of their artistry.
Image: BBC
The wait for new material from The Cinematic Orchestra has been a long one, with their last studio album releasing in 2007. However, the British outfit have unveiled a the first single from their much anticipated new material. To Believe is yet another stunningly beautiful track from TCO, and features vocals by Moses Sumney.
The song’s inspiration is based on “the prerequisite of everything in life is belief”, hence the weight title. Produced by TCO founder Jason Swinscoe and longtime collaborator Dom Smith, the description of To Believe as “poised” is palpably true. A slow moving, thoughtful and thought provoking track, it builds in both instrumentation and emotion. Growing out of a simple acoustic guitar, the melodies underlying Sumney’s vocals expand into piano lines and orchestral strings, balancing on TCO’s unique tightrope that blends electronica, experimental music and theatrical score.
Sumney’s vocals drift along on an aching falsetto. Both contemporary and choral, it’s a tone that echoes heavyweight talents like James Blake or Sufjan Stevens. There is something of the hymnal in To Believe’s gentle melodies, which is only enhanced by the layered vocals from Sumney. Yet somehow, the song goes out on shimmering strings which feel like magic winding down, or the end of a dream, in an old time movie.
The collaboration with LA based Sumney is timely after he was name as one to watch by both press and industry names like Beck, James Blake and Solange. To Believe is the first taste of the TCO’s long-awaited album, which we are assured is coming soon, although we are yet to hear a name or a release date. However, tour dates have been announced for Europe, which will see TCO joined by Thundercat, Gilles Peterson, Jameszoo and others.
You can listen to To Believe below.
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/289128073″ params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”450″ iframe=”true” /]
Moses Sumney will be touring Australia in January, including performances at MONA FOMA and Sydney Festival.
Image: B+
Anyone who has used Netflix for a while will be aware that movies and shows come and go with little warning and no explanation. Really, it’s not so mysterious. As the licenses for the site to host various productions expire and get renewed, they are removed and then periodically reinstalled. But some people are now noticing that the soundtracks to TV shows available on the service are being changed, and very few of those people are happy about it.
The main offenders are shows that aired prior to the advent of streaming services like Netflix; Scrubs, Queer As Folk and even Charmed have all be well noted by fans. In most cases it seems that the original music has been replaced with “knock offs”, which aren’t much more than a sonic nod to what was there before. Reddit hosts a number of discussions around this topic, where the general consensus is annoyance, and confusion.
Particularly in the case of QAF, with redditors claiming the show’s original music as an inextricable part of it. One commenter cites the show’s groundbreaking status as a show which “changed the face of the lives of gay and lesbian people”, and the songs that accompanied the visuals as becoming the actual soundtracks of many people’s lives. Another described the Scrubs soundtrack as one of the shows “main characters”.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTVpoT82toY]
As someone who works as music supervisor, on the one hand it is amazing, and even heart warming, to see so many people taking such a definite stance. For people to sincerely value music in productions, and to express that those songs did in fact reach them in a way that supervisors can only dream of, is incredible.
On the other hand, music licensing is a bitch. Contrary to popular belief, songs are not only costly to license to a production, but also complicated. It’s not simply a case of calling up Heather Small and asking if she’s cool with Proud playing out across a scene; a production needs permission from whoever holds the master rights, usually a label, and also the permission of the publisher.
And these are corporations, not artists. They are not just one person, and they are looking at a business deal – not your beautiful concept of the perfect soundtrack. They want to know what territories, what media, audience reach and for how long. And every extra will cost you, which is why pretty much no one licenses in perpetuity – or forever.
I have actually attempted to license a song from a TV show myself. After an exceptionally long online investigation to trace members of a now disband group, their representation and the rights holders, I found that the track was exclusively owned by the BBC. They had aired the show, and I was told that they absolutely do not relicense songs that they own. Not for anyone.
Queer As Folk ran from 2000 to 2005, while Netflix launched in 2007 and has only reached global proportions in the last couple of years. The original licenses that allowed QAF to use the songs featured in the show would not have covered streaming, which is another reason you cannot license for an unspecified term. No one knew that streaming would happen, so no one will pay that much money for a license that will probably become redundant as technology moves on. Imagine paying out an infinite license fee for VHS? Pointless.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=videoseries?list=PL1A104CBCD5E0DD16]
Interestingly, accidentally running an internet search for “Netflix music licensing” threw up a lot of ads for available jobs. Music licensing as an industry has grown exponentially in importance as the digital world has changed how we consume media. Perhaps Netflix is playing catch up as well?
In my experience there is still very little understanding of how it all works across industries who are in fact liable for the use of recorded music, and the main point of contention is often cost. “Exposure” is no longer seen as a viable return, especially not for tracks released years ago, by artists who won’t sell records or tickets off the back of it. Negotiating payment is hard enough, to renegotiate is even harder, especially if the original contract was made between people who are no longer around.
In a way, I feel like this brings us back to the “catch 22” that haunts music consumption generally these days. The conflict of demand versus what people are willing to pay; it’s no secret that the music industry has floundered in recent years, trying to make a rise in consumption add up to a rise in profits. People claim to love music, but don’t want to pay for it.
Services like Netflix are also a very cost effective way to access so much visual media, so can we complain that what we get a “cheap” version? The only feasible reason for a streaming service to change a soundtrack would be because they were unable to acquire the appropriate licenses, and the most likely reason for that would be that they couldn’t afford it. So it’s all very well to be up in arms about missing out on the original music you loved so much, but the question is are you willing to pay extra to get it back?
Image: Midem Blog
The Flaming Lips will be hosting a Halloween party this weekend at Oklahoma’s Womb Gallery. But for those who can’t make that, frontman Wayne Coyne has teased a couple of mash ups ahead of the event. Posting snippets of the mixes – and footage of himself dancing along – on instagram, Coyne appears to have picked out Tame Impala and A$AP Rocky, as well as a bit of Kanye.
One video mixes Tame Impala’s New Person, Same Old Mistakes with Electric Body from A$AP Rocky and Schoolboy Q. A second features a familiar excerpt from Kanye West’s Monster along with another unidentified track. Coyne gives us a sneak peak of the onscreen mix in the videos, and a great view of his wild locks as he nods along to the beat.
The Flaming Lips also recently announced their next album, Oczy Mlody, which is due for release 13 January 2017 on Warner Bros. Records. The band have already released their first single from the record; The Castle, which Coyne shouts out in his insta posts. In a series of Facebook chats and videos, Coyne gave some explanation around the record and the video for The Castle. The album is also reported to feature a guest spot from Miley Cyrus. Apparently the singer appears on the final track, titled We a Family, which has yet to be released. Cyrus is seemingly returning the favour after the Flaming Lips collaborated on Miley Cyrus and Her Dead Petz.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqXj0RLV1RI]
Coyne also referenced A$AP in his description of the album, saying in the press release that Oczy Mlody “sounds like Syd Barrett meets A$AP Rocky and they get trapped in a fairy tale from the future”. The band have also embarked on an international tour, running until April next year across the USA and Europe.
Image: SPIN
Being a rock legend has many perks I’m sure, but it can’t protect you from everything. One such thing that being an icon doesn’t appear to guard against is “grumpy old man syndrome”, as evidenced by The Who frontman Roger Daltrey, who has directed his latest string of complaints at the very music he built is career on.
Having maintained an aura of dissatisfaction and aggression throughout his career, in the 60s and 70s Daltrey pretty much personified the romanticised definition of discontented youth – and was known for throwing a hard punch. In recent years, he has still found plenty to be dissatisfied with, from refusing to make another record, because the internet ruined music, to his caustic description of AC/DC’s recent tour (calling Axl Rose’s efforts a “karaoke show”), even his own fans disappoint Daltrey.
Image via Ultimate Classic Rock
But most recently, it’s rock music that has got Daltrey down. Despite his once upon a time cry of “Long Live Rock”, in a recent interview Daltrey appeared to have stepped down as a champion of the genre.
“The sadness for me is that rock has reached a dead end… the only people saying things that matter are the rappers and most pop is meaningless and forgettable,” he told The Times Magazine. “You watch these people and you can’t remember a bloody thing.”
His comments came off the back of The Who’s appearance at the Desert Trip festival. Despite the deaths of both Keith Moon and John Entwistle, and advancing age, Daltrey and Pete Townshend have continued to tour over the years. Also in spite of being “deaf as posts”, according to Daltrey’s typical pessimism, and possessed of bodies that “start to creak after the age of 65”.
Perhaps finding himself hard of hearing makes enjoying new music more difficult for Daltrey, as The Times suggested, but his comments strike more at the meaning of music today. He isn’t the first rocker to mourn the death of the genre; back in 2014 Gene Simmons claimed that rock had been “murdered”. Simmons blamed file sharing, but Daltrey’s words seem to suggest that bands have come to the end of the road with rock.
Whatever the reason, this comment seems to have resonated amongst the rest of Daltrey’s grumping. In the same interview he complained about travel, air pollution, his vocal nightmares and that the band still play the same set as forty years ago. But to seemingly put his faith in rap is something that not many rock fans would have seen coming – even from a grump old man, and especially not from a rock legend.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEc9nXErU-Y]
Image: The Who Official
Donald Trump may have rallied an unprecedented amount of support for his presidential campaign, but not so much within the music industry. In fact, more often than not, we hear about the artists who are actively opposed to him and his politics. While Barack Obama seems to only feature in the music press for his cool, eclectic taste in listening material, Trump has impacted music journalism far more than many other politicians – and much more negatively.
His run for office has been littered with pissed off musicians, as he appropriates their songs without permission or support. Dubbed the “Orange Clown” by R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe, Stipe also advised Trump to go fuck himself after It’s The End Of The World… was used at a Tea Party rally. Adele, Neil Young, Aerosmith; all well publicised for denying Trump the use of their music. But even further than that, we are seeing more and more musicians speak out directly against Trump as a political candidate, and even produce anti-Trump music.
Eminem’s latest release Campaign Speech hit just this week, an eight minute long political tirade that pointedly rips at Trump. So much so that most of the coverage has focused exclusively on the anti-Trump messaging. Death Cab For Cutie also released their own anti-Trump narrative track, Million Dollar Loan, this week. Even The White Stripes reunited to release “Icky Trump” merch, playing on their 2007 album title Icky Thump.
For anyone mourning the decline of protest music, these really are incredible rallies from artists against a political situation. In particularly vicious move, Kanye West’s producer Mike Dean ran with the vile recordings of Trump that came to light recently, remixing his words into “The Official Donald Trump Jam”; GRAB EM BY DA PUSSY.
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/286692523″ params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”450″ iframe=”true” /]
So what do all these artists have in common, besides an understandable distaste for the Orange Clown? So far, the artists really addressing the specifics or Trump’s politics are mostly men. Of course, there are a number of female musicians making their political voices heard, taking to social media to express what so much of the rest of the world is thinking. But very few female artists are making the same direct statements or going as far as to produce anti-Trump material.
Cher’s twitter feed has been consistently filled with short but sharp rants against Trump. Miley Cyrus has also made her concerns very clear, and her fear for America if Trump were to become President. Adele forbade the use of her music, and Madonna even had a piñata made in Trump’s likeness for her son to take a few swings at on his birthday.
https://twitter.com/cher/status/788243251220262912
Any musician taking a political stance knows that aligning themselves politically is likely to cost them fans – and ultimately sales – somewhere. Commonly known as “shut up and sing” syndrome, not every music fan wants to mix politics with entertainment. And as musicians, no artist should feel bound to get involved in a political discussion.
However, we have to ask the question why female artists are seemly more hesitant to take a more outspoken stance against Donald Trump? And we do need to ask because Trump can easily be held up as the most openly sexist and misogynistic presidential candidate in recent history. One whose political aspirations are not fantastic, but a man who is actually in the final running for leadership of one of the most influential nations.
In the last month alone, we have been privy to the disgusting “locker room banter” that pretty much advocated the assault of women, and insulted them with the idea that women will accept sexual advances unasked and purely because of a man’s celebrity. And any woman listening to the most recent debate cannot fail to have been frustrated to the point of yelling at their computer as Trump embarked on his ill informed, scaremongering tirade against abortion rights. A C-Section is a very different thing to an abortion, you orange faced prick… And that doesn’t even begin to cover the many horrendous comments Trump has made over the years.
Image via Facebook
Like it or not, The Official Donald Trump Jam is more than direct, and it is an undoubtedly incredible thing for an artist like Moby to call out Trump as “ a privileged piece of shit”. But why do male musicians appear to be more outspoken on what are definitely feminist issues? Do their reactions get promoted more widely, or is it because women are not publicly voicing their concerns as openly?
Lady Gaga openly praised the women who came forward to accuse Donald Trump of sexual harassment and assault, in the midst of a number of people questioning why these women had not spoken out sooner. Perhaps the answer to that question is close to why female musicians find it that much harder to really speak out. Those women were immediately targeted, insulted, threatened and disbelieved.
Trump surrogate @heytana says accusers can't be believed bc real victims talk right away. No they don't, bc people like you call them liars.
— S.E. Cupp (@secupp) October 14, 2016
https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/786449698517192705
https://twitter.com/libbysays66/status/786554601860325376
The fact that women who speak out are targeted more often, and more aggressively, than men who make similar statements, is pretty well documented. Especially across areas that are perceived to be male dominated. Politics is unfortunately still perceived by some as one of those areas, and conversely, women in music are too often seen as only ornamental. These two battles combined make for a peculiarly difficult arena for female artists to enter.
Powerful women in music are lauded for their confidence, the way they present their characters and the way the exhibit amazing self respect and integrity. Are those not the same attributes you might use to describe a powerful woman in politics? The entertainment industry has an inherent glamour, but that also shouldn’t devalue all of those things, or exclude women from having a political voice should they wish to.
https://twitter.com/adammanziel/status/787053492913397761
It’s actually understandable that they may not wish to. The price of celebrity could be calculated as lack of privacy plus social responsibility minus choice in the matter (and the answer does not equal pussy grabbing Donald, that was never part of the equation). However, as musicians, women – or anyone for that matter – are not obligated to become political figures. But faced with the possibility of Trump for president, I cannot help but wonder if female artists are holding back from being as outspoken as their male counterparts?
Gender should never restrict who speaks out for what causes; feminism is not only for women, LGBTQ rights are not only to be championed by those who identify as part of that community, and minorities should not be the only ones fighting against discrimination. But as a woman, how can you not be ready at least question such sexism and misogyny in a potential world leader?
With women in music advocating for feminism, like Lorde, Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, it does seem that there should be more direct action from female artists. Generalised disdain is well and good, but it doesn’t address the actual threats that Trumps campaign really poses to women. It is more than frustrating to think that these women hold back because the damage to their careers will be exponentially bigger than to the men who champion the same causes. Or that they will face increased aggression and violence, simply by virtue of being women who dared to speak out.
Image: Indian Express
Certain health issues have historically been treated more discreetly than others, sometimes out of respect for a person’s suffering, and sometimes simply because no one wants to hear the graphic details of your recent case of gonorrhoea. Until relatively recently, mental health was just not spoken about, usually out of fear, not respect.
It may sound extreme, but suffering from mental health problems is comparable to an illness like cancer; the symptoms are not immediately visible, but the effects are a daily struggle. Mental health can debilitate your physical body just as much as your emotional wellbeing, life becomes punctuated with hospital visits and medication – which can also have unpleasant side effects. Even witnessing someone suffering can be awful for families and loved ones, let alone trying to care for that person. It can leave life long scars, it can reoccur aggressively and, tragically, it can be fatal.
However, unlike those illnesses that we are more accustomed to hearing about, mental health is not always addressed with the same sympathy, understanding or respect. Much like how the stigma surrounding sexual health has been gradually worn down (better that you do talk about gonorrhoea and actually get it treated), campaigns like R U Ok? and Man Therapy work hard to create safe spaces where people can be open about mental health.
Sometimes it’s hard to be the one to speak out… Image: Friends Wiki
While the closest we’ve come to a celebrity poster boy for VD would be Joey in that Friends episode, a number of public figures have opened up about their own struggles with mental health, and in recent years we have seen an increase in transparency and openness – largely thanks to the high visibility and immediate communication that social media allows. As much as famous spokespeople can effect change by speaking out, there is also a certain power in the proof that fortune and fame cannot buy you health or happiness. Particularly where mental health issues are concerned.
It is important that these struggles are not reserved for social outcasts or ‘weirdos’; depression cannot be solved with money, and even beautiful, wealthy, famous people are not immune. Sadly, good looks and a lot of cash also can’t protect against criticism and cynicism. Even as the media campaigns for increased awareness and better treatment for mental health sufferers, it is not always so kind towards celebrities.
The vast amounts of information at our fingertips is a double-edged sword for those the media are concerned with. Social reach can be an incredible tool, but it also makes the media highly competitive for audiences – see clickbait. It is frustrating to see mental health picked up as yet another thread of sensationalism. Just as celebrities are stepping up to talk about their mental health, they are torn down for “crazy” behaviour.
How many musicians have been labelled in this way just this year? From Kanye West through to Zayn Malik, from Kid Cudi to Kehlani, we’re seeing the very real effects of mental illness on celebrities, and the terrifying, often harmful ways in which the media, and celebrity contemporaries, may handle it. There is definitely a line to be walked between open discussion and gossip mongering. As much as we need the media to support an honest approach and the lessening of the stigma surrounding mental health, we do not need the issue to be trivialised by clickbait articles.
The incredible fascination with Kanye West’s behaviour is particularly interesting. His penchant for outrageous comments and left field musings are pretty irresistible, and undeniable. But is it acceptable to then drag Ye through the mill of speculation as to what his exact state of mental health might be? Armchair diagnosing is not not only disrespectful, but also dangerous.
That boy needs therapy… Image via YouTube
Constant surveillance is admittedly the price of fame, and most people feel that it’s a small price. Social media gives us a direct link to artists, Instagram and Twitter are the new fan mail – and hate mail too. However, it’s a door that swings both ways. How often has someone’s Twitter feed been hauled up to be dissected following a “crazy rant”? And on the other hand, how many times have you said something you wished you hadn’t via social media? Probably quite often.
Luckily, most of us can rely on our small rages and tantrums being forgotten. With millions of followers, that is less likely to happen. Especially if the media keep digging out those tweets or ‘grams every time your name is mentioned.
The internet never forgets. Image via Today In Pop
Speculation about breakdowns has replaced gossip columns about break ups, while some enter rehab for depression rather than drugs. But coverage is often so focused on the person’s celebrity status and the trappings that go with it, often appearing cynical or in disbelief that the wealthy and famous are as susceptible to mental illness as the rest of us. It’s not just tabloids, either, who purport that these people do not share any kind of experience with normal people, even claiming that their issues are no more than petty fodder for the rich and famous. Many are even accused of exploiting or fabricating issues for publicity.
The concept of exploitation is a tricky one to navigate, with too many people believing that true suffering would not be publicised so easily. Some only pay attention when it’s too late, such as an attempted suicide or public breakdown. Outside of the media, even an artist’s peers can be dismissive or critical of their behaviour, reenforcing the idea that those struggles are not real or valid.
Despite all this complaining as to invasive media coverage, it’s hard to know if it is preferable to ignorance. In the past, a celebrity’s mental health may have only come into question too late. Look at Marilyn Monroe, or Janis Joplin. Or Kurt Cobain, Ian Curtis, Elliott Smith. The label ‘suicide’ is attached to so many artists, but somehow we forget to make the connection between suicide and mental health, much like we can forget to make the connection between an artist and oneself.
Without social media warnings or parasitic press, it was actually much harder to cry for help, even inadvertently, especially because mental health was not up for discussion in any shape or form. Depression was often treated as simply a nervous disorder brought on the pressures of fame, or as just a typical facet of the artistic personality. Either privately or self medicated, behind closed doors, neither is an effective way to address these issues.
That term “cry for help” has also come to imply a certain sense of attention seeking. An implication that somehow seems to filter into the way we handle artists experiencing mental health issues. Add that to the accusations of exploitation, the trivialisation of the issue, judgment and criticism from strangers and peers… it’s quite a litany of damnation that artists face.
But that same list applies to nearly everyone who experiences mental health problems, famous or not. My own brother once accused me of “putting it on” when I was having a panic attack. Not all panic attacks are hyperventilating and fainting; some are terrifyingly internalised, with just a handful of physical quirks that betray the complete turmoil and fear that someone is experiencing.
I’ve been told “just get on with it”, “chin up” and even “but you’re better now”. Some people find it uncomfortable to hear that I’ve experienced mental health problems, they don’t like to hear that I’ve had “therapy”. People actively deny how many physical symptoms mental suffering can cause, it doesn’t matter that I have experienced it.
And thank fuck I don’t have millions of twitter followers, or even use Facebook that much. But if someone had recorded even just some of the things I have said or done, Kid Cudi’s venting would read like a Valentines Day card. It may not have been obviously “crazy” or “psycho”, but it was cruel and irrational, because it was born out of confusion and fear.
So really, celebrity experiences are not that much different to everyone else’s. The problem is that, under the guise of opening up about mental health, all we have really done is elevated their struggles to global proportions. The removal of the stigma attached to mental health will hardly be achieved by simply expressing the same prejudices on a much larger scale. The way it is treated in the media should be comparable to other illnesses, and it should be accorded the same respect.
Image: Respect Mag