The Femme Fatale era is looking like uncharted territory for Britney, and not just because her new album has a fresh and dramatic new sound . This is the first time one of her albums has received so many positive reviews. Some of them have even addressed themselves to the music, and given a track-by-track account. Yet I’m seething with anger and frustration because none of these reviews has had anything good to say about Britney herself. It’s as if Femme Fatale is nothing more than a project, or product, that magically and mysteriously attaches to her name. So, in a sense, while these reviews are “good”, they are also more destructive than ever.
As examples of what I’m talking about, we have this from Rolling Stone: “On nearly every track, Britney's voice is twisted, shredded, processed, roboticized. Maybe this is because she doesn't have much of a voice...” ; and this from EW: “These days, we don’t ask a whole lot from Britney Spears as an entertainer. She can bungle her dancing, muss her weave, and sleepwalk through a video... and we’ll still send her straight up the charts simply because she’s Britney. She’s an American institution, as deeply sacred and messed up as pro wrestling...”
Meanwhile, in an astonishingly incompetent and ill-informed review, the Guardian pronounces the album “a success... despite rather than because of the woman whose name is on its cover”, calls Britney “a manufactured pop star” and remarks, “it was a bit tricky to work out what the singer actually brought to the party, beyond a nasal voice so emotionally unengaged it made even Kylie's approach to vocals sound like Janis Joplin...” , adding “if the pop personality stakes have been raised, no one seems to have told Britney Spears. On Femme Fatale, her voice is as anonymous as ever...” One of the most rcognisable and distinctive voices in pop is “anonymous”? Right..... And they actually let these people write reviews?
If she brings nothing of value to the party, what I want to know is this: how in the world does it keep on happening, year after year, album after album, when the music industry is notorious for its “out with the old, in with the new” philosophy, and when you consider that Britney - uniquely among her generation - has given her industry a shedload of opportunities to get rid of her and recruit someone with a lot fewer problems and - presumably - a loud, wailing voice. Heaven knows, there are plenty of them around. Wouldn’t any record company prefer to be rid of someone whose brand was sullied almost beyond redemption, if that person was also talentless?
And isn’t this kind of dismissal of Britney as an artist of value ALSO a dismissal of the tastes, preferences and musical sensibilities of the millions of people who adore Britney’s voice and buy her albums purely because she is on them? The idea of some kind of mass delusion is attractive to many cynics, but if the entire career of Britney Spears is a scam, wouldn’t everyone have “seen the light” by now and done their best to deny that they’d ever been fooled by it? Don’t we have those sad little scumbags who spend hours of every night of their lives hopping from website to website in their endless quest to help us share their insight into the truth about Britney? Yet she has some of the most faithful fans of any artist.
As if we needed to show that would-be critics are flailing around for something engaging to say, rather than reporting actual insights, the reviewer at sputnikmusic.com, as far from the Guardian’s opinion as it’s possible to be, decided that Britney is ALL about personality, and says “Calling Britney a pop singer is doing the term a disservice... Perhaps it’s easier to just say that Britney is Britney and nothing more – someone who is more a distinctive sound and a driving force of sex nowadays than a genuine musical talent. “
My contempt for critics isn’t new. When Britney’s “Blackout” album was released, I found most of the reviews so wrong-headed, perverse and shallow that, when I wrote my own review, I called it “Karen’s Super Music-Oriented Review”. Many people must have thought “But aren’t they all...?” However, my friends had a quiet chuckle because they knew exactly what I was getting at.
My complaint was that the reviewers were, with very few exceptions, reviewing Britney’s life and career over the previous couple of years, rather than the album itself. Presumably this is the outworking of the critical theory that the values and significances of an artist’s works can only be appreciated by studying the historical context of their creation. It might help to explain why her albums get enthusiastic reviews but only 3 stars.
It wouldn’t have been so bad if these writers had known enough about their subject to bring the historical context up to date, but usually it appeared that they were living in some kind of time-warp. In fact, they were building their critical appraisals upon a kind of tabloid consensus, upon the last thing they vaguely thought they’d heard about Britney Spears. Not, one might think, the firmest of foundations.
And so, most reviews of “In The Zone” took the approach of ridiculing Britney as a time-expired teeny-pop puppet, instead of listening with open minds to some pretty amazing music that most of us agree was well ahead of its time and inspired much of what was to follow in pop in the years ahead. Similarly, most reviews of “Circus” tended to remark upon how much more confident she sounded, and how much less processed her vocals were, compared to the “Blackout” era - which was a complete fantasy, based entirely on the notion that this was her “comeback” album. In fact, it appeared only a year after “Blackout” - which was REALLY her comeback from the longest break in her career to date.
That idiotic Guardian reviewer hangs his entire premise on something that is factually inaccurate: “Britney Spears made her best album when she was at her worst. It wasn't merely that the various producers of 2007's Blackout – its recording somehow slotted into a pressing schedule of visits to rehab, head-shaving and being carried out of her own home strapped to a gurney while the world's media circled overheard in helicopters – took her apparently imminent demise as an excuse to try anything they fancied.” But “Blackout” wasn’t recorded during her breakdown era, and she herself was the Executive Producer.
I guess you could say that what makes an artist iconic is the amount of myth that surrounds them, but a little accuracy would do no harm. Nor would a little objectivity. In my “Blackout” review I wrote, in obvious frustration: “I’ve long since passed the point of being impressed by loud voiced, “listen to meee” bellowing and meretricious arpeggiating. What I want to hear is an interesting voice. It doesn’t have to be soaked in booze and breakdown so long as it’s delicately nuanced, with grace, style, humor, variety and an ability to create magical, felicitous moments that live on in the mind every time you think of a song. Britney’s voice is all of that, and on this album we hear her making further developments to her stylings.”
I believe Britney has explored further-flung vocal territories on “Femme Fatale”, and, judging by her Rolling Stone interview, she did this intentionally and with full awareness of the use of electronic processing. But the reviewers are working from an entirely different script. Again, it’s a teacher’s report on how well she’s doing in her career. And the key point that is making them so deaf to something so obvious is that she lip-synched on her “Circus” tour and therefore officially “can’t sing”.
This can’t be an unprejudiced observation based on her vocals on FF, because, when you think about it rationally, IF you’re going to complain on the one hand that her voice on FF is so processed and synthesized that it’s pretty much a vocal body-double, you can’t on the other hand whinge about its acoustic qualities and about its being weak. Why would it be? The studio geeks can make it as loud and tough as they want to. In fact, her vocals on FF are not only among her strongest, they are as robust and muscular as any other pop singer’s - and that’s setting aside the fact that they’re full of the sly, teasing, kittenish, expressive Britneyness that only a hardcore of golden-eared fans fully understand and appreciate.
But the critics are not particularly interested in listening with a mind that’s even slightly ajar, never mind open. They begin with a theory and spend the rest of the time trying to prove it. And in 2011, with Britney firmly tied down under a conservatorship and with little immediate drama in her life to draw upon than in the past, they have taken to pondering why Britney is here at all, and this therefore has become the critical environment for FF. I wish someone in authority in the media would order that all reviewing should take place in a darkened room with the identity of the artist unknown.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Britney and the "auteur" theory
In a recent post, PoorBritney took a whack at those people who seem to think that, in order to have credibility as an artist, even to BE an artist, you have to write your own material. From this, someone drew the remarkable conclusion that Britney is a “manufactured” act. This is odd enough, when you consider that she has served her full apprenticeship in every aspect of becoming a star, beginning when she was scarcely out of her infancy.
Are people who make these allegations merely ignorant? Don’t they realise that Britney became a star the hard way? Do they know nothing of Star Search, “Ruthless”, the New Mickey Mouse Show, the years and years of plodding around state talent contests, learning how to sing in the style of the big stars of the day, followed by more years and years of learning her craft in Performing Arts school? If she’s “manufactured”, then she manufactured herself.
But these would-be critics seem to be trying to introduce a kind of “auteur” theory into music to parallel the one sometimes advocated in the world of film criticism. According to this theory, a movie is in essence the reflection of the director's personal creative vision. This has led, in some cases, to the director gaining most of the credit for a movie, eclipsing its stars, and appearing to dismiss their contribution as negligible. When imported into the world of music, most of the creative credit for an album is given to the producers, especially if they also happen to be writers.
However, the “auteur” theory in movies is strongly challenged by those who argue that each and every movie is a collaborative effort, involving the chemistry and synergy of many contributors. And, although the theory was doubtless conceived in order to snatch a share of the spotlight away from the headline stars, it can scarcely be denied that the long-term success of almost every movie depends on great performances by actors. And that is what audiences see and remember.
The exact same thing is true of music. No matter who the producer may be, the long-term success of an album depends on great performances by singers and musicians, and that’s what audiences hear and remember. Audiences in the past were happy enough to hear brilliant performances by stars like Aretha Franklin, Tina Turner, Diana Ross, and Dusty Springfield. None of them ever wrote a song. What was important was how they breathed life into a song, brought it to an audience, and gave it the special lustre that belongs to a special singer.
Just as much as movie-making, music is also a collaborative process. Singer-songwriters may still anguish over their words and imagery in a lonely bedroom, but the majority of pop songs these days come into being in a recording studio, and aren’t “written” so much as worked up from a demo or basic concept by everyone present. The singer, by his or her very actions in bringing these embryonic creations to life, will be thoroughly involved in making suggestions that could have a major effect on the final outcome. Thus, some singers (such as Beyonce) demand a writing credit for changing a single word. Some, of less greedy disposition, do not. But don’t you think Britney, or any other singer, could do that if they wanted to?
It would be a sad and desperate thing if that was the only way you could obtain credit as a supposedly authentic “artist” . Please take careful note of what Britney said in her recent Rolling Stone interview: “I have always been heavily involved in every album I have ever made.... I have to feel connected before I record and the song has to spark something inside me.... I wanted to make a fresh-sounding album for the clubs or something that you play in your car when you're going out at night that gets you excited but I wanted it to sound different from everything else out right now. I wanted to experiment with all the different types of music I love... I also really wanted to play with my voice and change up my sound here and there. I listen to a lot of different music from all over the world and I guess I just gravitate towards what sounds fresh and what makes me want to move. I really didn’t want to record anything on this album that could be mistaken for anyone else out there.”
I don’t know what all of that says to you, but to me it says that Britney herself is the main conceptualizing, motivating, and deciding force behind her albums. If, despite all that I’ve said, you still believe in the “auteur” theory, it kind of looks like Britney herself is the “auteur”.
Are people who make these allegations merely ignorant? Don’t they realise that Britney became a star the hard way? Do they know nothing of Star Search, “Ruthless”, the New Mickey Mouse Show, the years and years of plodding around state talent contests, learning how to sing in the style of the big stars of the day, followed by more years and years of learning her craft in Performing Arts school? If she’s “manufactured”, then she manufactured herself.
But these would-be critics seem to be trying to introduce a kind of “auteur” theory into music to parallel the one sometimes advocated in the world of film criticism. According to this theory, a movie is in essence the reflection of the director's personal creative vision. This has led, in some cases, to the director gaining most of the credit for a movie, eclipsing its stars, and appearing to dismiss their contribution as negligible. When imported into the world of music, most of the creative credit for an album is given to the producers, especially if they also happen to be writers.
However, the “auteur” theory in movies is strongly challenged by those who argue that each and every movie is a collaborative effort, involving the chemistry and synergy of many contributors. And, although the theory was doubtless conceived in order to snatch a share of the spotlight away from the headline stars, it can scarcely be denied that the long-term success of almost every movie depends on great performances by actors. And that is what audiences see and remember.
The exact same thing is true of music. No matter who the producer may be, the long-term success of an album depends on great performances by singers and musicians, and that’s what audiences hear and remember. Audiences in the past were happy enough to hear brilliant performances by stars like Aretha Franklin, Tina Turner, Diana Ross, and Dusty Springfield. None of them ever wrote a song. What was important was how they breathed life into a song, brought it to an audience, and gave it the special lustre that belongs to a special singer.
Just as much as movie-making, music is also a collaborative process. Singer-songwriters may still anguish over their words and imagery in a lonely bedroom, but the majority of pop songs these days come into being in a recording studio, and aren’t “written” so much as worked up from a demo or basic concept by everyone present. The singer, by his or her very actions in bringing these embryonic creations to life, will be thoroughly involved in making suggestions that could have a major effect on the final outcome. Thus, some singers (such as Beyonce) demand a writing credit for changing a single word. Some, of less greedy disposition, do not. But don’t you think Britney, or any other singer, could do that if they wanted to?
It would be a sad and desperate thing if that was the only way you could obtain credit as a supposedly authentic “artist” . Please take careful note of what Britney said in her recent Rolling Stone interview: “I have always been heavily involved in every album I have ever made.... I have to feel connected before I record and the song has to spark something inside me.... I wanted to make a fresh-sounding album for the clubs or something that you play in your car when you're going out at night that gets you excited but I wanted it to sound different from everything else out right now. I wanted to experiment with all the different types of music I love... I also really wanted to play with my voice and change up my sound here and there. I listen to a lot of different music from all over the world and I guess I just gravitate towards what sounds fresh and what makes me want to move. I really didn’t want to record anything on this album that could be mistaken for anyone else out there.”
I don’t know what all of that says to you, but to me it says that Britney herself is the main conceptualizing, motivating, and deciding force behind her albums. If, despite all that I’ve said, you still believe in the “auteur” theory, it kind of looks like Britney herself is the “auteur”.
Friday, March 11, 2011
When the Blessing of Modesty became a Curse
Back in the day when I still hung around with men, my boyfriend used to complain that Britney’s worst fault was her lack of ego - yet it was one of the things he loved most about her. It reminds me of TV detective Adrian Monk’s wonderful comment on the bizarre personality traits that made him so effective: “It’s a blessing..... and a curse!”
My BF’s issue was with Britney’s lack of certitude, and he felt that it hampered her career. Where most megastars build a shell of egotistical self-worship around themselves, Britney was more prone to bouts of self-loathing - or, at the very least, a total loss of self-confidence. She has revolted against herself on more than one occasion. Once, she decided to take a break from her career because she simply wasn’t a big fan of herself. Another time, she found that she couldn’t bear the sight of her face on so many magazine covers.
Where some stars may proclaim that their next album will not only save the world, but be the greatest single cultural event of the century, or discuss its lengthy gestation and eventual painful birth with any journalist who has a big enough readership, Britney doesn’t take herself or her work that seriously. She isn’t so self-obsessed that she thinks her music is of earth-shattering importance. For her, it’s supposed to be fun - but she still wants to do it the best that she can.
But seeing it as intended for fun isn’t the same as taking a throwaway or careless attitude to her music. Far from it. A fan once wrote “One thing about Britney is that she never lets you down. She always delivers.” She works damned hard. She spends more time in recording studios than almost anybody. She produces so many outtakes you could make several more albums out of them, and they’d all be good.
She doesn’t lapse into the habit of always working with the same producers. You can be sure that Dr Luke won’t figure prominently next time. Britney lives at the cutting edge of pop and has good ears for trends that matter and for everything else that’s going on out there. The content of her albums is adjusted and changed right up to the last minute, so it won’t already be old by the time it comes out.
We know all of this, don’t we? So why do I keep finding fans muttering darkly on their forums that she “isn’t involved” and “doesn’t seem interested”? It drives me mad. She may not boost herself with a lot of dubious writing or co-producing credits, but if she was as detached from her music as some people say she is, she’d make a formulaic album every 4 years and try to promo herself from nowhere back into the game instead of what she does, which is to stay on the field.
If she hated making albums, or basically couldn’t be bothered spending countless hours in recording studios, she could avoid it. She doesn’t need the money, and everyone knows there isn’t much money in recording nowadays anyway. But some people are clearly not behaviorists and don’t draw their conclusions from th things a person actually does. They have their own sets of signifiers and validators that mean something to them, but don’t really make a lot of sense.
As one fan on a well-known forum put it: “Some say they support her but they want her to be a promo machine with no other goal in life than one Billboard 1 after the other. Some fans are more obsessed with the perfect Britney than Britney herself will ever be. Some fans are so concerned about Britney being the indisputable number one, the most talented, the most recognized, the best video queen ever, that they don`t enjoy all the fun. Some fans tend to get too worried or too carried away by negative emotions to let themselves enjoy things a bit more.”
Another fan says: “We're all so caught up in the writing credits and vocal production, but these things are givens when talking about Britney. She has always had co-writers/writers and as of ITZ, used heavy vocal production. Why, all of the sudden, is it such a surprise?”
And he’s right in more ways than one. Back around the time of ITZ, one of the magazines that interviewed her was already commenting that she seemed curiously dispassionate about her music. Yet here we are, several albums later and she's still doing what her ACTIONS appear to show that she is very passionate about.
And this is where we come back to what I was saying at the start. Britney is a modest, unassuming person. As Poor Britney says, she has a simple way of talking. She doesn’t have grand, portentous delusions about pop music or about her personal ability and mission to alter lives. She doesn’t see herself as a modern day Pied Piper leading the nation’s children into a magic mountain. But, just because she isn't big on "blowing her own horn" we shouldn't deduce that she’s semi-detached from her music or isn’t “involved”.
My BF’s issue was with Britney’s lack of certitude, and he felt that it hampered her career. Where most megastars build a shell of egotistical self-worship around themselves, Britney was more prone to bouts of self-loathing - or, at the very least, a total loss of self-confidence. She has revolted against herself on more than one occasion. Once, she decided to take a break from her career because she simply wasn’t a big fan of herself. Another time, she found that she couldn’t bear the sight of her face on so many magazine covers.
Where some stars may proclaim that their next album will not only save the world, but be the greatest single cultural event of the century, or discuss its lengthy gestation and eventual painful birth with any journalist who has a big enough readership, Britney doesn’t take herself or her work that seriously. She isn’t so self-obsessed that she thinks her music is of earth-shattering importance. For her, it’s supposed to be fun - but she still wants to do it the best that she can.
But seeing it as intended for fun isn’t the same as taking a throwaway or careless attitude to her music. Far from it. A fan once wrote “One thing about Britney is that she never lets you down. She always delivers.” She works damned hard. She spends more time in recording studios than almost anybody. She produces so many outtakes you could make several more albums out of them, and they’d all be good.
She doesn’t lapse into the habit of always working with the same producers. You can be sure that Dr Luke won’t figure prominently next time. Britney lives at the cutting edge of pop and has good ears for trends that matter and for everything else that’s going on out there. The content of her albums is adjusted and changed right up to the last minute, so it won’t already be old by the time it comes out.
We know all of this, don’t we? So why do I keep finding fans muttering darkly on their forums that she “isn’t involved” and “doesn’t seem interested”? It drives me mad. She may not boost herself with a lot of dubious writing or co-producing credits, but if she was as detached from her music as some people say she is, she’d make a formulaic album every 4 years and try to promo herself from nowhere back into the game instead of what she does, which is to stay on the field.
If she hated making albums, or basically couldn’t be bothered spending countless hours in recording studios, she could avoid it. She doesn’t need the money, and everyone knows there isn’t much money in recording nowadays anyway. But some people are clearly not behaviorists and don’t draw their conclusions from th things a person actually does. They have their own sets of signifiers and validators that mean something to them, but don’t really make a lot of sense.
As one fan on a well-known forum put it: “Some say they support her but they want her to be a promo machine with no other goal in life than one Billboard 1 after the other. Some fans are more obsessed with the perfect Britney than Britney herself will ever be. Some fans are so concerned about Britney being the indisputable number one, the most talented, the most recognized, the best video queen ever, that they don`t enjoy all the fun. Some fans tend to get too worried or too carried away by negative emotions to let themselves enjoy things a bit more.”
Another fan says: “We're all so caught up in the writing credits and vocal production, but these things are givens when talking about Britney. She has always had co-writers/writers and as of ITZ, used heavy vocal production. Why, all of the sudden, is it such a surprise?”
And he’s right in more ways than one. Back around the time of ITZ, one of the magazines that interviewed her was already commenting that she seemed curiously dispassionate about her music. Yet here we are, several albums later and she's still doing what her ACTIONS appear to show that she is very passionate about.
And this is where we come back to what I was saying at the start. Britney is a modest, unassuming person. As Poor Britney says, she has a simple way of talking. She doesn’t have grand, portentous delusions about pop music or about her personal ability and mission to alter lives. She doesn’t see herself as a modern day Pied Piper leading the nation’s children into a magic mountain. But, just because she isn't big on "blowing her own horn" we shouldn't deduce that she’s semi-detached from her music or isn’t “involved”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)