It Takes The New York Post To Report The Truth?It Takes The New York Post To Report The Truth?
New York Post writer Maureen Callahan penned an interesting column about that singer Susan Boyle. You know, the frumpy lady with a beautiful voice who charmed viewers of Britain's Got Talent and, thanks to YouTube, American audiences and talk shows. Ms. Callahan suggests that Boyle's Cinderella rise was no accident, but rather shrewdly choreographed by the same people (i.e. judge Simon "Trousers" Cowell) who seemed to have no initial faith in her.
My reaction? Duh!
I'm not putting down Ms. Callahan, just noting that she's saying what most industry-savvy people already know: These talent contests that presume to let the audience decide who becomes a star are about as authentic as the 1950s gameshows were in the movie Quiz Show. It's a blow to viewers who've really bought into the idea that they, The People, actually decide the next pop idol.
I've heard of people who turned down the offer of a spot on one TV talent contest, because they objected to the caveat that they say and do exactly what producers tell them to. They refused to go along with whatever story line that was embellished for them. And when you think about it, how would honchos know to invest time and effort to create a mini documentary about a contestant at the beginning of eliminations, who later just happens to move on to the final-final rounds? Because show producers are just so simpatico with the public's taste? Yeah, right.
The music industry--meaning the major labels and fancypants producers--has been on a downward spiral for almost a decade now. Creating shows in which the audience feels an emotional investment in an upcoming talent is business genius. People will watch in droves, so the industry can reap the benefits of huge TV ad revenue. The masses will be guilted into buying a singer's record instead of downloading it for free or cheap, thinking that they're helping a struggling everyday Joe/Josephine--and then labels will get the 90 percent of the retail price like they usually do. Heck, even people who loathe these contest shows get to be engaged with efforts like VoteForTheWorst.com--unwittingly helping the networks claim a larger audience and thus charge more for commercial time.
Now, I'm not putting down Ms. Boyle. Nor Paul Potts, the opera-singing guy who also defied conventions on the same British show--and whose story a year ago, I'll admit, got me all verklempt for a moment. Nor am I questioning their talents. Indeed, the one silver lining is that talented folks who aren't traditionally "marketable" can find success in showbiz the way they couldn't before.
But these folks become just as much a cog of the industry machine as any scantily-clad underage blonde. And musicians who have as much talent and heart--but not the willingness to become a story-perpetuating patsy--remain out in the cold.
CommentsComments
Respectfully, Daisydoes, your food analogy is flawed because--health issues related to organic and local food aside--one could argue that a carrot bought cheaply at the local supermarket tastes pretty much the same as one bought from a premium farm two ours away. Good music, on the other hand, isn't (or shouldn't) be as homogeneous. We all probably know someone whose voice, guitar-playing, or songwriting is superior to 99% of the drivel on certain radio stations.
That being said, of course we shouldn't eschew a musician who is on a label just because he or she is, or like all musicians who aren't just because they aren't! The point is that the music industry is, as it always has been, manipulative of both its artists and its audience. Susan Boyle's talents are certainly as worthy as any image-blessed pop star, if not more so. But should she and Paul Pott really be forced to discuss and embrace their so-called "ugliness" because that sob story is allegedly what sells them? I guess if she is willing to put herself down because it leads to a record deal, that's her business. And if a deluded listener wants to believe he or she really helped to pick the "next big thing," that's his or her business too.
Finally, there are plenty of ways to discover "likable music that is label-free": The mom-and-pop music store. Local music shows. MySpace. LastFm. Etc.
Cynical much? You must live a miserable life to fine a negative in the Susan Boyle story. Yea, we the audience were surprised at her audition and her back story was remarkable. I would even say that the producers were surprised when she auditioned (not in front of the cameras) and wanted us to experience the same feeling of discovery they did. Did they manipulate her story or make her more frumpy for the show? No. What we saw was Susan Boyle. Will they manipulate her now and profit off her success? Of course. Her cinderella rise was an accident (I don't think the producers kept her locked up with her cat for 48 years in order to spring her on us at the exact right time) and your cynicism about her only shows that you are incapable of enjoying a moment of joy.
So what is your point? We should as a principle not like singers as Susan Boyle, and as a principle only like singers that have no label? Now how would 6 billion people find some likable music that is label-free? Let me put it this way: I buy my food at the supermarket. Or should I drive out every day to the country side to buy at the various farms?