A Travie McCoy song has got me thinking. I accept this may have not been his intention. In his recent single , "Billionaire", featured heavily on Radio 1, he sings how he "wants to be a billionaire so frickin' bad". Margaret Thatcher would have been so proud! It seems to me that this raises some questions about the music industry itself nowadays. Is the motivation for new artists to make money (and be rich and famous) or to make the best music that they feel they can make? And does this affect how we listen to such music?
Music, in particular pop music, has undoubtedly become in many areas a business. Simon Cowell is regarded as a skilled businessman and not necessarily a great producer of art. He would not hide from the fact that he looks for artists that will sell as many records as possible rather than artists who could be culturally significant. The problem I have with Simon Cowell is that I honestly think he would release the screeching of an electricuted dog if he thought he could sell millions of copies. Oh wait, no that was Leona Lewis....
Travie McCoy's song seems to be expressing 'Cowell-esque' sentiments. He does not want people to love his song "so frickin' bad" (though I find it works quite well as a 3-word review of his song), he doesn't want young artists to be inspired by his songwriting "so frickin' bad", he wants simply fame and fortune. What I don't understand though, is that such an expression of greed is being lapped up by the British public. The song reached No.3 in the charts. Yet if a banker was interviewed on the news going into work at his London investment bank and asked what he was doing it for, a response of "I want to be a billionaire so frickin' bad" would surely be met with a less than sympathetic response. And yet surely both are applying their trade to become rich fat cats. What's the difference?
The issue of music and money also can be seen to be related to artists becoming 'mainstream'. An example of this can be seen in the current ill-feeling by some original fans to the band Kings of Leon. They have developed, seemingly deliberately, in recent times into a 'stadium-rock' sound quite apart from their original raucous and raw style. As a result, they have found much higher levels of success; selling millions of records, repeated chart success and radio airplay, selling out stadiums and headlining festivals, oh and making lots more money. So, on one hand, they may have developed their sound because they want more people to enjoy their music and want to play gigs to more people. There seems nothing wrong with this, ask any small-label rock band "do you want to headline Glastonbury or do you want to play pub gigs?" and I'm guessing Worthy Farm is going to be the preferred destination. However, on the other hand, you could look at Kings of Leon's situation cynically and say that their change in musical direction has led them to abandon their musical roots and alienate the loyal fans that have been there since the beginning for the pursuit of fame and fortune. Some may point to recent, possible signs of ingratitude such as greeting fans who have paid hundreds of pounds for a festival ticket with "We are Kings of Leon, so fuck you!" to say that they have been corrupted by fame. Can Kings of Leon be millionaires and still in touch with their fans and their music?
This all leads me to Radiohead (warning: this may not be the last mention of 'the greatest band ever' on this blog...). Surely, if any band were anti-consumerist and all about the music then it was this band. Here is the group who released OK Computer, an album both critically received but also which flung them into the mainstream, and hated the fame that it brought them. They responded with Kid A and Amnesiac; no singles and melancholic electronic weirdness...beauty also...but unquestionable weirdness. They even released their latest album In Rainbows on a 'Pay What It's Worth' scheme starting from 79p. Here are a band who make the music they want to make, that they think is the best music they can make and give it to their loyal fanbase with no intention of making huge profits. However, could this not also be cynically intepreted? In Rainbows raised Radiohead's profile hugely, made them hit the headlines, all which surely benefited the ticket sales for their subsequent tour...
This rambles me towards a conclusion I feel. Musical success and money are inseperably linked; success means that more people will buy your music and attend your concerts and you will, in a capitalist society, become richer. The fact of the matter is that Wembley Stadium can sell more tickets than my local village hall. But what I think is important is that the artist remains genuine and, above all, still fully inspired by making the best music they can rather than getting the biggest cheque possible. If we as musical punters stick to the principle that we only buy music that we love and that is made by people who still love music themselves, then 'Simon Cowell and co' could yet learn the errors of their greedy ways.
Music, in particular pop music, has undoubtedly become in many areas a business. Simon Cowell is regarded as a skilled businessman and not necessarily a great producer of art. He would not hide from the fact that he looks for artists that will sell as many records as possible rather than artists who could be culturally significant. The problem I have with Simon Cowell is that I honestly think he would release the screeching of an electricuted dog if he thought he could sell millions of copies. Oh wait, no that was Leona Lewis....
Travie McCoy's song seems to be expressing 'Cowell-esque' sentiments. He does not want people to love his song "so frickin' bad" (though I find it works quite well as a 3-word review of his song), he doesn't want young artists to be inspired by his songwriting "so frickin' bad", he wants simply fame and fortune. What I don't understand though, is that such an expression of greed is being lapped up by the British public. The song reached No.3 in the charts. Yet if a banker was interviewed on the news going into work at his London investment bank and asked what he was doing it for, a response of "I want to be a billionaire so frickin' bad" would surely be met with a less than sympathetic response. And yet surely both are applying their trade to become rich fat cats. What's the difference?
The issue of music and money also can be seen to be related to artists becoming 'mainstream'. An example of this can be seen in the current ill-feeling by some original fans to the band Kings of Leon. They have developed, seemingly deliberately, in recent times into a 'stadium-rock' sound quite apart from their original raucous and raw style. As a result, they have found much higher levels of success; selling millions of records, repeated chart success and radio airplay, selling out stadiums and headlining festivals, oh and making lots more money. So, on one hand, they may have developed their sound because they want more people to enjoy their music and want to play gigs to more people. There seems nothing wrong with this, ask any small-label rock band "do you want to headline Glastonbury or do you want to play pub gigs?" and I'm guessing Worthy Farm is going to be the preferred destination. However, on the other hand, you could look at Kings of Leon's situation cynically and say that their change in musical direction has led them to abandon their musical roots and alienate the loyal fans that have been there since the beginning for the pursuit of fame and fortune. Some may point to recent, possible signs of ingratitude such as greeting fans who have paid hundreds of pounds for a festival ticket with "We are Kings of Leon, so fuck you!" to say that they have been corrupted by fame. Can Kings of Leon be millionaires and still in touch with their fans and their music?
This all leads me to Radiohead (warning: this may not be the last mention of 'the greatest band ever' on this blog...). Surely, if any band were anti-consumerist and all about the music then it was this band. Here is the group who released OK Computer, an album both critically received but also which flung them into the mainstream, and hated the fame that it brought them. They responded with Kid A and Amnesiac; no singles and melancholic electronic weirdness...beauty also...but unquestionable weirdness. They even released their latest album In Rainbows on a 'Pay What It's Worth' scheme starting from 79p. Here are a band who make the music they want to make, that they think is the best music they can make and give it to their loyal fanbase with no intention of making huge profits. However, could this not also be cynically intepreted? In Rainbows raised Radiohead's profile hugely, made them hit the headlines, all which surely benefited the ticket sales for their subsequent tour...
This rambles me towards a conclusion I feel. Musical success and money are inseperably linked; success means that more people will buy your music and attend your concerts and you will, in a capitalist society, become richer. The fact of the matter is that Wembley Stadium can sell more tickets than my local village hall. But what I think is important is that the artist remains genuine and, above all, still fully inspired by making the best music they can rather than getting the biggest cheque possible. If we as musical punters stick to the principle that we only buy music that we love and that is made by people who still love music themselves, then 'Simon Cowell and co' could yet learn the errors of their greedy ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment