Posts Tagged ‘Michael Jackson’

New this week—1/31/10

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

Taylor Swift—”Today Was a Fairytale”
#2

As songwriting, this is rehash; Swift has gone over the same ground many times before, though this pares the idea down to its basics in an appealing way. The real appeal, though, lies in the fact that, even more than the bonus tracks on the deluxe edition of Fearless, this clears away the production clutter that was that album’s greatest weakness. With every record Swift seems to have a clearer idea of what she’s aiming at and how best to attain it. She may be not just the biggest pop star of the moment, but also the smartest.

Justin Bieber featuring Ludacris—”Baby”
#5

Catchy and sweet, and even Ludacris keeps it clean (though it’s impossible for him to sound as innocent as Bieber does). Bieber is still doing a young Michael Jackson imitation and little else, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing, especially with hooks as catchy as this.

Jay-Z, Bono, The Edge & Rihanna—”Stranded (Haiti Mon Amour)”
#16

Despite Jay-Z’s confused attempt at making sense of tragedy and Bono’s meaningless plea for volunteers (who would only confuse things by this point) this is better than anyone had a right to expect. Jay keeps the song at groundlevel by emphasizing specific realities and personal loss, while Bono and Rihanna soar on the chorus. Jay-Z’s and Bono’s egos are incapable of not pushing their own agendas, but the overall effect manages to cancel both out. One of the few benefit records I’ve heard that may be worth listening to after the fact.

Justin Timberlake & Matt Morris featuring Charlie Sexton—”Hallelujah”
#48

This performance has a lot to recommend it, but I still find it irritating that “Hallelujah” has become the go-to song for anyone who wants to sound seriously spiritual and sincere, the same role previously played by “Amazing Grace” and “People Get Ready”. The problem is that “Hallelujah” isn’t really about spirituality so much as it uses spiritual imagery and Biblical references—David and Bathsheba, Samson and Delilah—as metaphors for the irresistible, baffling powers of love and lust. Cohen was singing about love and lust and music as acts of God, but not the kind of acts, like Haiti, to which that phrase normally refers. He wasn’t channeling the Book of Job, he was channeling The Song of Solomon. Timberlake and Morris sing beautifully—I especially like the way their voices seem to break and strain as they reach for the final notes, as if singing “hallelujah” in these circumstance was both the hardest and most important thing one could do—but the song doesn’t mean what they try to make it mean, and in this context it’s confusing more than anything else.

Lady Antebellum—”Our Kind of Love”
#80

Better than the last two singles-of-the-week, not as good as the first two, which adds up to mediocre.

Rihanna—”Redemption Song”
#81

Rihanna has a voice, and she wisely keeps this rough and tries her best to focus on the emotion, but she isn’t much of a singer, and the song is beyond her. It would be unfair to compare her to Marley, and this is a hard song to sing under any circumstances, much less under the time constraints she was working with here, but this sounds unsure and amateurish. And the background, except for the guitar part lifted largely from Marley’s original, is pure mush.

History is hard

Thursday, November 26th, 2009

As anyone who cares already knows, today is the day Billboard changes the rules for its album charts and allows releases older than 18 months to appear on the Top 200. Considering the season, it’s no surprise that a large number of those older LPs are Christmas records. There seem to be some problems with the historical numbers, though. Michael Jackson’s Thriller is correctly shown with a peak position of 1. Oddly enough, though, The Beatle’s remasters, all of which also went to number one in their original release, show totally different peak postions. The White Album, for instance, shows a peak position of 152, it’s current position on the chart, despite being number 1 for nine weeks in 1968. The listing for Abbey Road is even more confusing. It was number 1 for 11 weeks, but Billboard shows its peak as 69, a number that makes no sense since its current position is 118 and it wasn’t on the chart last week. The remaster also made top ten on the old Comprehensive chart, so they can’t be referring to that, either. Perhaps not coincidentally, however, 69 does match up with the year of Abbey Road’s original release. It’s enough to make you wonder if they’re still doing these things by hand.

Update (11/30/09): The numbers are correct in the print edition, but are still wrong in both online versions of the chart. Guess nobody proofs the web sites.

Michael Jackson continues to fiddle with the music business

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

Billboard has announced changes in some of their album charts for the coming year. Aside from a rearrangement of how the R&B album chart is counted and the addition of a Folk Music chart (how that will be defined seems open to question), the biggest change is in the Top 200 Albums chart, which will now be based solely on sales, regardless of release date. Since 1991, Billboard has taken albums that were over two years old (later amended to 18 months) off the chart. In the last year, however, especially after the death of Michael Jackson (now the biggest selling artist of the year) and the release of the Beatles Remasters, that formula has been called into question (the change only affects the Top 200; all the other album charts will still drop LPs over 18 months old).

It’s not a surprise decision. People have been murmuring about the chart not being an honest reflection of popularity for a while now, and since the record labels are probably making more money off of re-issues these days than new releases, it will provide a more accurate reflection of commercial realities, as well. We’ll be seeing a lot more MJ and Beatles (not to mention Bob Marley, Creedence, and The Eagles), which isn’t necessarily a good thing, but we’ll also be seeing a lot fewer albums that have barely scraped 20,000 sold in the top ten.

It may not be what the record labels want (they were the biggest supporters of the exclusionary rule, since it put more focus on new releases), but at least it will give everyone a better idea of what the public wants, and it also seems to play into Billboard’s own business development plan. I can’t help but wonder if Billboard’s decision isn’t partly driven by the fact that they now make the entire Top 200 available on their website, with links to purchase charted albums. Not only will it be less confusing to the layman audience that comes by their site, but it also ensures that only the most popular records are available for sale. I’m sure the editorial/commercial divide at Billboard is fairly strict, but the company has been slowly moving toward becoming not just an information provider, but a player in the music business itself (a move that’s even more direct outside the US, where Billboard stages awards shows and owns concert venues). I still trust their numbers, but more and more I’m beginning to doubt their motives.

Call the removal squad

Saturday, November 7th, 2009


Chris Brown - Graffitti

This, the cover of Chris Brown’s upcoming album, has been making the rounds all week, engendering many WTF? reactions. The meaning seems obvious enough: Brown, who looks to the future instead of the past—literally above it all—is applying some old school bug spray to the cartoonish haters, bloggers, blog commenters, twitterers, and gossip mongers like TMZ and Perez Hilton who have the audacity to stand between him and his destiny just because he beat the shit out of his girlfriend. If the bug spray doesn’t work, he’ll bash them with his guitar (probably borrowed from Lil Wayne, to go along with the clothes borrowed from Usher and the metal hand borrowed from Beyonce). Good move, Chris, you’re now officially as despicable as Akon. Oh, and you might want to ask the Konvict, along with R. Kelly and the ghost of Michael Jackson, if there might be such a thing as bad publicity after all.

New this week

Sunday, October 18th, 2009

Britney Spears—”3″
#1

There’s no doubt now that Spears is back in full control of her career, and the playful tease of this record even suggests that she’s enjoying herself again. But compared to songs like “Gimme More” or “Piece of Me”, both released when her life seemed to be in freefall, this is remarkably tame, and the echoes of their sound here suggests a reliance on formula. The truth is she’s working ground that others—Lady Gaga, especially—have already laid claim to with more sense of daring and style than Spears is now willing, or capable, of putting out. She can still titillate her old fans, obviously, and there are still enough of them to debut this at number one, but you have to wonder how long she can work this particular plot and make it pay before she, or her fans, get bored with it.

Justin Bieber—”One Less Lonely Girl”
#16

I like the feel of this, which is surprisingly reminiscent of early Michael Jackson, but the song doesn’t go anywhere on it’s own, and Bieber lacks the chops to move it anyplace special. Still, this is a lot better than his first single, and makes me wonder if Bieber has more talent (or at least better handlers) than I first gave him credit for.

Glee Cast
“It’s My Life/Confessions Part II”, #30
“Halo/Walking On Sunshine”, #40

For the first time you can actually hear the joke, not only through the silliness of the mash-ups themselves, but in the performance—that last high note on “Halo” could kill small animals. The Bon Jovi/Usher mix is so seamless it reveals the essential meaninglessness of both (which is more to Usher’s detriment than Bon Jovi’s—at this point who expects a Bon Jovi song to mean anything?). The Beyonce/Katrina and the Waves mix is a little rougher, but speeding up “Halo” is an improvement over the original (or it would be if the performance were better), since it removes all the bombastic nonsense Ryan Tedder is so fond of and cuts down on the near-religious awe Beyonce’s original wallowed in. Neither of these is worth listening to more than twice, mind you, but they’re still a big improvement over what came before.

Chris Brown featuring Lil Wayne and Swizz Beats—”I Can Transform Ya”
#52

This may seem like an odd choice for a comeback single, but it’s probably a smart move commercially for Brown to toughen up his sound—no one at this moment in time is going to buy him as a romantic balladeer or pop crooner, so a strong dance record makes sense. Swizz Beats comes up with a distinctive sound for the record, too, machine-like but swinging at the same time. Trouble is, Brown’s voice isn’t really suited for this type of material (I’m not sure his voice is suited for any kind of material, actually), and Lil Wayne, who has been omnipresent for three years now, is starting to sound tired and bored, if not quite boring.

T.I.—”Hell of a Life”
#54

Surprisingly upbeat, and even funny in spots, with an arrangement that, with it’s keyboard filigree and horns, literally approaches the baroque. As wrong-headed as he obviously sometimes is, it’s hard not to like T.I., even on records as overdone as this. Can you really blame a guy who’s heading off for jail for pulling out all the stops?

OneRepublic—”All the Right Moves”
#58

Having cornered the power ballad market, Ryan Tedder and his cohorts now set their sights on Coldplay via this pseudo-revolutionary blather. Written before they were stinking rich, I assume. I like the drum sound, though.

Ke$ha—”TiK ToK”
#79

The latest in what is now an undeniable trend: mindless party records about getting blotto (hey, times are hard out there). This is Lady Gaga without the artistic pretension, or 3Oh!3 without the sexism, or Katy Perry without the burlesque, or Cobra Starship without the male perspective or…well, you name ‘em. She seems to be more in control than most. She also sounds like she’s having a lot of fun. But does she really want all her men to look like Mick Jagger? In which decade would you be talking about, sweetie?

Creed—”Rain”
#91

Just to prove how sensitive they are they bring out the acoustic guitars, slow the tempo, and shelve the dramatic shifts in rhythm and dynamics. They still persist in fantasizing about destroying the world, though, a catastrophe which only they, like Noah, would survive. This is the problem with religious rock ‘n’ roll: it emphasizes the worst apocalyptic instincts of both.

Brooks & Dunn featuring Billy Gibbons—”Honky Tonk Stomp”
#97

To celebrate their upcoming professional divorce, B&D bring in a guy from ZZ Top to croak out the title hook and to add some very loud, very non-country guitar behind their good-old boy, wild man boasting. Why do I have a feeling I’m not going to miss them very much?

LMFAO featuring Lil John—”Shots”
#98

The butt end, so to speak, of the “let’s all get wasted” wedge that has forced itself into pop culture the last year or so. Like the Lil John of crunk legend, this is so blatant and so honest in it’s expression of drunken lust that it’s almost charming. Well, until you get to this, that is: “The ladies love us/when we pour shots/They need an excuse/to suck our cocks.” FYI, these guys, who are signed to will.i.am’s label, now have three records in the Hot 100. Is everybody in the music business drunk?

Birdman featuring Drake & Lil Wayne—”Money To Blow”
#100

“We goin be alright if we put Drake on every hook,” says Lil Wayne. Yeah, but first you’ve got to have a hook.

Who says singles don’t build slowly anymore?

Thursday, July 9th, 2009

I first mentioned The Ting Tings’s “That’s Not My Name” over a year ago, when it was a hit in the UK. Finally released as a single in the US near the end of the year, it crawled, slowly, up into the mid-fifties on the Hot 100, stayed for the full 20 weeks Billboard allows records below the top 40 that have stopped growing, and then, in June, disappeared. It stayed on the Hot Singles Recurrents chart, though (where, until Michael Jackson’s death, it was Number 1), and never left the iTunes top 40. Now, thanks to a sudden rise in sales and airplay (including, of all places, Radio Disney), it’s back on the Hot 100.

I’ve never understood why this wasn’t a bigger hit–it’s a great record, and if something as un-pop as “Paper Planes” could go top five, there’s no reason why this, which bears some resemblance to the Black Eyed Peas, only with more of a post-punk as opposed to techno feel–also more simplicity, more artfulness, and greater depth–shouldn’t be a smash as well. Isn’t it time some post-punk inspired dance music made the top ten? What they need is some swift media exposure, like a guest spot on the Jonas Brothers show or something. In September they’re touring with P!nk. That should help.

Goin’ Back to Indiana

Thursday, July 2nd, 2009

Jaq and I are are visiting her family in Indy for the weekend, so Hot 100 and Top Ten updates won’t be posted until Monday. Since Michael Jackson’s records don’t qualify for inclusion in either, the charts this week won’t be an accurate reflection of sales and airplay, anyway. Maybe Billboard should have let the whole chart take the week off. See you on Monday.

A Perfect Storm

Sunday, June 28th, 2009

This piece by David Segal in the New York Times about the end of fame in the wake of Michael Jackson’s death is the kind of lazy editorializing that drives me crazy. The apparent disinterest in facts is bad enough (why, for instance, say that Thriller was number one for “more than 31 weeks” instead of looking up the actual number, 37, which is easily found through any number of sources?), but even more irritating is the kneejerk, conventional wisdom that fills the whole piece. Apparently, we’re too easily distracted now to appreciate an artist like Jackson. We’re overwhelmed by too much information, too many competing forms of media, too much viral cybercrap diverting our attention (ironically, the example Segal uses to cap his piece is decidedly old school: a scantily-clad woman being pulled through a crowd on a cart–at what time in all of human history would that not be a distraction?).

Segal ignores two things. First, that Jackson himself benefited from the the early ’80s own version of an information explosion: the proliferation of 24 hour cable TV channels that expanded the market for promotional videos and led to the creation of MTV, a media expansion which many at the time complained was flooding the country with meaningless information and novelty-driven entertainment (a complaint that had already been leveled at television in the ’50s and radio in the ’20s).

Second, and most important, Michael Jackson was a multi-talented genius who would have become a major star in any generation or in any period of cultural or, as people seem to prefer to think of it now, media history. Talent will out, and the fact that the viral successes that clog up the current media stream are short lived novelties is meaningless. Viral media isn’t preventing talent from appearing, it’s unconsciously sifting the talent pool in search of an artist who will justify it’s existence, turning it from just another media stream into the media stream, in the same way Jackson justified the existence of MTV.

The tired argument that the media controls the culture, instead of the other way around, has been disproved time and time again for anyone who would take the trouble to look, but it still gets dredged up by people on both sides of the media power divide: the have nots think an expansion of media will create an explosion of repressed and under-appreciated talent, while the haves are afraid that new media will cause them to lose control of a culture over which, in reality, they have no actual power.

The idea that culture, even popular culture (if, that is, it can even be separated from human culture as a whole), can be controlled in any real way for any appreciable length of time, is laughable. Popular culture is, literally, a force of nature, and Jackson became a kind of perfect storm. It’s meaningless to say there will never be another Michael Jackson–of course there won’t. There will never be another Beatles either, or another Elvis or Sinatra or Jolson or Caruso (there will never be another you or I, for that matter).

But that doesn’t mean there won’t be others whose achievements will be just as great, whose fame will be just as phenomenal, whose presence will seem as irreplaceable once they’re gone. Every generation has at least one of those, usually more. In the end, Jackson’s death is only one man’s death, no matter how sad it may be or whatever meaning or symbolism you want to hang on it (and I fully admit to having done some of that myself). But the end of fame? Some people just aren’t paying attention.

Tumbling Down

Friday, June 26th, 2009

None of the post-mortems of Michael Jackson I’ve read so far have made what seems to me an obvious connection, that Jackson’s death symbolically marks the absolute end of what had been standard operating procedure for the record business ever since Thriller. Since he set the paradigm of the blockbuster, multi-single album, a concept that has been dead for three or four years now, that only seems fitting. Like Elvis’s death, Jackson’s passing marks a cultural and business turning point. The exhaustion of pop music the last few years, especially in hip-hop and r&b, has been an indicator that the massive influence Jackson had over pop music, and the creative energy he injected into it, has finally faded. The rot had settled in long before yesterday, of course, and one of the ironies of Jackson’s final days is that a great many people in the music industry were looking forward to the O2 shows as a way of revitalizing the industry, or at least reveling in it’s former glory. Now, instead, they will get a sudden burst of sales in Jackson’s albums–just in time for them to appear on eMusic–and then a whole lot of nothing. There will be tons of commemorative reissues, remixes, outtakes and God knows what else–a death industry that will rival Elvis’s. Neverland will become the new Graceland, being a Michael Jackson imitator will become a lucrative and lifelong career, and advertisements for commemorative plates will flood the airwaves. Then, in another four or five years, someone will either appear from nowhere like Elvis, or remake themselves into something totally unexpected in the same way Jackson did, and an entire generation will put MJ aside and move on to fresher glories.

MTV: Bad as it ever was

Friday, June 26th, 2009

One of the things that keeps popping up in the news about Michael Jackson’s death is the fact that MTV is going back to it’s all video format in homage to the man who helped make them so much money. But I haven’t seen anyone actually mention how they’re doing it. Watching last night it was impossible not to be repulsed by how lame the whole thing was. When I turned it on they were showing the remix of “Smooth Criminal”. This was followed by about eight commercials in a row. Then a brief news spot about Jackson’s death. Then a bunch more commercials. Then another video (”Gone Too Soon”, a song I had forgotten about). Then another batch of commercials. Then the exact same news announcement. Then another batch of commercials. And so on. I think I saw that same news piece four times in the space of an hour, and maybe three videos in the same amount of time. This was a tribute? I know they don’t have VJs anymore, and they just announced another round of layoffs, but is MTV so gutted that they couldn’t put something together that didn’t feel like a late night infomercial? Or even show two videos in a row?