Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Radio & Music >

Simon Fuller sells 19 Management

Page: 1(2)

I'm Rick Jones, bitch

13:00 / 23.03.05

Her webbed feet give her an unfair advantage for when the ice caps melt, too. Always bare this in mind. HOMO SUPERIOR!

13:16 / 23.03.05

comparing A.N Other pop singer to elvis presley in Music forum = comparing anything to hitler/thenazis/the holocaust in any other forum.

that bandybandy-legs dance she did for that video was fucking hilarious. hilarious meaning rubbish that is.

where's jo the essex girl one? she rocked.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

13:50 / 23.03.05

Strange that she was the one always given lead vocal duties on most S Club tunes but Rachel Bundy-Manson is the one 'doing a Robbie'. Or trying to.

That bandy leg dance is the second best high point of the video. Rachel retreating into her sewer, troll-like, at the end being the high point, obviously.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

13:57 / 23.03.05

Although she, also, seems to have a certain murderous...detachment, in her general denouement...

What is it with these poppets, sorry musicians, and their serial homicide ?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

14:04 / 23.03.05

SHIT! That's a big picture...sorry, mods, what an arse.

Still, look at the eyes.

15:00 / 23.03.05

denouement?

demeanour?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

15:05 / 23.03.05

Cheers, Gumbitch, that's liquid lunch for you...2 pints of wifebeater and my Franglais is all over the place.

Jack The Bodiless

15:33 / 23.03.05

comparing A.N Other pop singer to elvis presley in Music forum = comparing anything to hitler/thenazis/the holocaust in any other forum.

Oh, rubbish, you silly little man. It's a bloody good comparison that basically puts the wind up you becasue you don't have an answer for it. Same with comparisons to Sinatra and most of the Motown posse. Calling it a Godwin-equivalent in such a sulky way is, you know, just a little bit sad...

Anyway. I wouldn't call Stevens a musician. Know why? Because she doesn't perform music, she sings, and not very well at that. I understand that it is possible to label anyone who performs music of any kind as a musician - nonetheless, it's stretching the definition of the word in a really disingenuous way, and I think it's the sign of a weakness in the argument to have to do that, so yaaaahhhh! to you.

Why does she have to be a musician? Who gives a monkeys? Why is it important? The twenty-something woman Rachel Stevens is the face and most of the voice of the gestalt pop entity 'Rachel Stevens'. Now, Money Shot works in the music business, and so feels it incumbent upon himself to remind us of who and what the separate components of this entity are. Really, though - who cares? Lawyers, certainly. Maybe a few other financially interested parties who feel the need to know how their baby works and what makes it tick. We are not them, and they are not us. I don't give a fuck who wrote what for Kylie/Britney/JoJo/whoever. I want my shiny pop magic boots, and I want them NOW. I like all pop music. It looks pretty in my CD rack next to the rock n' roll, metal, industrial and noise CDs. It's great to dance to, and by all that's choreographed, painted and artificially inflated, I shall dance if I want to so feck off.

And Rachel Stevens the woman is responsible for the music released in her name in one very important way - she's personally held accountable by the media and the consuming public for what is produced or distributed in her name, including both the music and her image. Don't think so? Try reading the tabloids, a few message boards, a few fansites... I know, I know, the horror, but seriously, try. You'll see what I mean.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

16:00 / 23.03.05

I am Jack's bodiless pouting rant.

Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!

17:07 / 23.03.05

I'm Rick Jones, bitch

18:58 / 23.03.05

Maybe some people have a different idea of fun to you.

Oh, and Elvis broke in a time where the idea of the singer-songwriter (or bands that wrote their own stuff) was (were) less apparent in the public mind, which I'd posit means the two artists aren't analgous to the extent some people are suggesting.

Jack The Bodiless

20:14 / 23.03.05

I like teh rant! Bodiless, and yet see me pout...

Elvis and Stevens are analogous - and the only reason they're not, in your own words, is because people have a weird idea of the singer/singwriter/band as the aspirational zenith of all musicdom. Which is kind of the point.

I'm Rick Jones, bitch

21:07 / 23.03.05

They're not completely analogous though - you know as well as I do that public perception of a pop artist is almost as important as the artist themselves.

Otherwise Milli Vanilli are analogous to Madonna, no?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

08:22 / 24.03.05

Analogous? In some ways yes, in many (vital) ways, no. Different eras. Music business is unrecognisable from the the beast it was then to now. Different business model, different demographic, absence of ubiquitous TV, singles chart and radio essential to promotion of an act, politics, recording process, management system, so many things.

I don't think there is much to be gained by comparing two hugely different things from fifty years apart as if they are basically the same. Perhaps a Venn Diagram would help. I can't be arsed, but please feel free.

They both sing / sang for money. Each one has an "E", "L", "V", and "S" in their name. Over to you.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

08:28 / 24.03.05

people have a weird idea of the singer/singwriter/band as the aspirational zenith of all musicdom. Which is kind of the point.

It's not my point. Maybe you're not saying it is. I'm all confused and would like a biscuit.

I'm Rick Jones, bitch

08:38 / 24.03.05

Oh yeah, and if Elvis can be said be analogous to Rachel Stevens, she's analogous to pretty much everyone to do material which isn't their own.

That's not a very useful statement. It's like saying they're both bipeds and came out of a mummy's tummy. It's true, but it doesn't get you anywhere.

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:08 / 24.03.05

That's exactly the point though - it does get you somewhere if other reasons have not been provided as to why Rachel Stevens is not like any other singer who performs material someone else wrote.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

09:46 / 24.03.05

Wow, this is exhausting.

Lets recap...Have any reasons been given or not?

Is it a useful analogy?

Was Elvis responsible for 'Hound Dog'?

Is his responsibility or lack thereof analogous to Rachel Stevens' responsibility or lack thereof for 'Sweet Dreams my LA X' and 'Some Girls'?

Are Elvis and Rachel Stevens similar enough as professional creative entities to make answering any of these questions worthwhile instead of, say, making some tea, and having a biscuit?

Questions, questions.

09:50 / 24.03.05

'silly little man'

oh the barbs of the last angry fan, in a shit town where the people don't even care enough to mock any more - don't worry youngster, i can take it.

'I like all pop music. It looks pretty in my CD rack next to the rock n' roll, metal, industrial and noise CDs. It's great to dance to, and by all that's choreographed, painted and artificially inflated, I shall dance if I want to so feck off.'

classic fonzie defense. you just love talking in internet cliches and stock strategies innit? sweet really, 'the nineties never ended'.

plus, you bang on and on about 'musician' when even the bit you quoted off me sez 'pop singer'. don't be shifting the gothposts so! (it's possible to infer perhaps you're not talking about me by para 2, bit difficult to know how sloppy to assume the rhetoric to be.)

you're trying to have the realness argument again, because the music press taught you how to win that yonks ago. so ignore questions of degree, precedence, impact, all the difficult realtime structural issues involved in the comparison, fine. we're still talking about music though, considerations primarily aesthetic, so it's just taste: i truly believe that you do think that rachel and elvis are usefully comparable, that perhaps you even prefer rachel stevens cos you reckon it makes a you a-hippa to the pop kids at the indie disco - they think that iconoclasm is sooo original. inevitable conclusion: not your reasoning, just your taste, o band t-shirt wearing childult, is BAD, and not bad good, bad bad.

rachel = no different, correct, from many other pop singers. from the FIRST pop singer? quite quite concretely different. pretend it ain't so because you want to bring the argument back to po-mo 101 again if you want, but it just makes your hair look unwashed.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

10:14 / 24.03.05

I vote that we email a link to this thread to the offices of 19, after finding out Simon Fuller's PA's email address.

By the end of the day, we could have it straight from the horses mouth - Is Rachel Stevens analogous to Elvis Presley? Do we recognise Fuller's authority here? Or do we need it from Rachel Stevens also? What if they disagree?

Perhaps we could spam a few Rachel Steven's fansites to find out a broad swathe of opinion and compare it to the feedback from Elvis sites? Or is that, y'know, silly?

Jack The Bodiless

11:09 / 24.03.05

Gambit, I've read your post over about four times now, and it still makes virtually no sense. Have you heard of the English language? Would you like to try correct punctuation? Capital letters occasionally? How about coherently structured sentences? They're not by any stretch fo the imagination essential, but they do help to clear up semantic conundra when you're engaged in this kind of unfocussed rant. I see your spelling's improved though, bless your heart.

So - not sure who you're arguing with or why, and it certainly doesn't appear to be the conversation that the rest of us are trying to have, but you seem awfully upset. I like the way you keep mentioning things like 'goth' and 'shit towns' to try and needle me. It's been about twenty-two years since that kind of thing actually stung, though. Never mind, you silly little man. Would you like a biscuit and a cup of tea too?

Mo' Money: to recap, no one has given any reason as to why Rachel Stevens cannot usefully be compared to Elvis Presley as a pop star/singer, in the ambit of our discussions here. Yes, she's a living slim English girl and he's a dead fat Yank bloke - good, well done, there are lots of other differences between them too. But in the discussion we're having - not so many, no, and if there are any no one has yet pointed them out. We've had historical context and changes in public perception of celebrity/pop stars in the intervening 50 years, neither of which go anywhere near the point of the discussion, which is the authenticity of the star cf their responsibility for the music that they're a figurehead for. These are things that exist outside of historical context, so yes, it's perfectly valid to compare the two in that respect. To be honest, though Stevens/Elvis works to the required degree I think the comparison between Sinatra and Stevens within the context of this argument is a better fit...

And my argument isn't that Elvis/Frank get off without a scratch on the credibility-ometer while Stevens gets the big sneer - my argument is that none of it matters, becasue they're pop stars, all of them, and authenticity in a manufactured industry is entirely irrelevant.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

11:33 / 24.03.05

neither of which go anywhere near the point of the discussion, which is the authenticity of the star cf their responsibility for the music that they're a figurehead for

See, I suspected as much. It's often the case with this clunky textual medium, eh? We're not even talking about the same thing.

The only person who, at one point, since addressed, as far as I can tell...(but then, you know, I'm reading the thread)...was talking about that old stinkbone, was Flyboy Shaftoe...until we established that the 'authenticity' of Rachel Stevens as an artiste compared to, say, Elvis Presley, was not the subject being disputed, but rather any claims that she was 'responsible' for the songs. Which is different, non?

We even, shoot us now, established that they are equivalent in that broad respect at least. See, being responsible for a song is to be a writer, being responsible for a recording would make you the producer, aided by the performance of the artist and maybe band / musicians, and being responsible for a hit would be the province of the whole kaboodle up until now aided by the label .

Some folks take a whole lot of this upon themselves, and can be rightly regarded as being far more responsible than others.

However, this is all a bit much for NME journalists and Smash HITS! readers, and quite possibly you, who doesn't care.

It doesn't really change the absurdity of comparing an artist like Elvis with an artist like Rachel Lecter though.

And all this from a casual tossing off of 'responsibility'.

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:47 / 24.03.05

Ah, but y'see, I worried that maybe I'd been a bit hasty, so I went back and re-read what you actually said:

Also, sorry to split hairs, but Rachel Stevens was in no way whatsoever 'responsible' for either "Sweet Dreams my LA X" or "Some Girls".

"in no way whatsoever" is pretty categorical.

Anyway, new thread for general discussion of some of these issues...

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

11:58 / 24.03.05

Good idea.

Tryphena Absent

12:03 / 24.03.05

it does get you somewhere if other reasons have not been provided as to why Rachel Stevens is not like any other singer who performs material someone else wrote.

Because she didn't produce it or in fact have any specific input other than the singing of it. She shares the same responsibility as anyone else who is in the same position. However that doesn't detract from the responsibility of the singer towards a song that they are singing that is then released under their name. Rachel Stevens shares responsibility for her hits with the writer, the producer and the management company should they choose and negotiate the details of the song for her. In fact all of those people/groups have handed it to her. Even if her voice is adapted in production it is still her voice, her emphasis on the words... you can't detract from her input in to the creative process however small it might be.

Page: 1(2)