“He About To Lose Me”, one of the bonus tracks on the “Femme Fatale” album, has been a fan favorite since the pre-release leaks began, and gas managed to remain so, despite a certain controversy, to which I will return shortly. Although I have seen a handful of critical remarks about the song, most fans seem to love the strength and musical integrity of the melody and the freshness of the lyrics. It’s instantly ear-grabbing, and it’s interesting to note that, although it is a bonus track, Britney has named it as one of her favorites too.
“He About To Lose Me” was written by Rodney “Darkchild” Jerkins and young Norwegian singer/songwriter Ina Wroldsen, produced by Rodney Jerkins and mixed by Jerkins and Serban Ghenea. No instrumentalists are credited on the track, which presumably means all the instrumental tracks are programmed creations. Three “background” singers are named - Britney Spears, Ina Wroldsen and Michaela Shiloh.
The song has a familiar structure, with Verse Part 1, Verse Part 2, Chorus and Bridge.These are the lyrics:
I’m touching hands with someone seriously beautiful, eh-ah-eh-eh
I feel it burning and I know I'm standing far too close, eh-ah-eh-eh
I'm telling lies and if it shows I see that he don't care, eh-ah-eh-eh
I know he wants to take me home and get on outta here, eh-ah-eh-eh
I got someone waiting at home
He says he in love but lately I just don't know
He don't see me or make me feel hot
Banging in the club with all my ladies and he don't know that
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh-eh... eh-eh-eh... eh-eh
I feel my body losing focus as he touches me, eh-ah-eh-eh
And I should go but I can't overcome this chemistry, eh-ah-eh-eh
He pulls me close before he whispers something in my ear, eh-ah-eh-eh
He says he wants to take me home and get me outta here, eh-ah-eh-eh
I got someone waiting at home
He says he in love but lately I just don't know
He don't see me or make me feel hot
Banging in the club with all my ladies and he don't know that
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh-eh... eh-eh-eh... eh-eh
Someone by the bar keeps looking at us dancing
I see him staring at me, I see where he wants to be
Someone by the bar keeps looking at us dancing
I gotta, I gotta go, he don't know that
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me,
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh... eh-eh
I'm touching hands with someone seriously beautiful, eh-ah-eh-eh
I can quote these lyrics with unusual confidence in their accuracy, because Britney’s diction is extremely clear. Indeed it is largely because of the overall quality of her vocals that most fans have taken particular notice of this song. This is what I wrote in my review of the album: “Rodney Jerkins contributes a beautiful song that brings out the best in Britney. She seems, amazingly, to revert to her pre-Jive voice – natural, unaffected, sweet of tone, open-voiced, with lovely vibrato applied to selected lines.”
It is more than annoying, then, to observe that a fair proportion of fans have convinced themselves, and others, that Britney doesn’t sing the chorus. The argument raged on numerous forums for quite some time - does she or doesn’t she? And in the end the issue remained unresolved. Unfortunately, I’m now seeing fans stating as an accepted fact that she doesn’t sing the chorus. I think they’re completely wrong, and I’ll give two categories of reason, one based on logic and one based on listening.
Taking the logic first, why would she NEED to do it? The demands of the chorus in terms of range and dynamics are well within her capabilities. And do you think she would allow a track on one of her albums to go out with someone else’s voice singing the most prominent part of one of her favorite songs? I don’t. The chorus comprises almost half of the song -16 lines out of 37 - and if someone else was singing it, that would make it a duet. And if it was in fact a duet, wouldn’t Britney have given credit to the duettist? She is famously generous in giving credit to others. For someone else to sing 16 lines of a 37-line song would be a bigger contribution than Sabi makes to (Drop Dead) Beautiful.
Rodney Jerkins told the fans that he was responding to their demands by not applying processing to Britney’s voice. Is it likely that he would have so little integrity that he would make that commitment then go and use an entirely different singer? Seriously! These conspiracy theories go into the realms of extreme fantasy. The standard of argument on the “she doesn’t sing it” side is shown, for example, by claims that the chorus was sung by Myah Marie, but she isn’t even on the track and has denied it anyway!
But if you want to say “damn the logic, it just doesn’t SOUND like Britney” we have to consider the alternatives - Ina Wroldsen and Michaela Shiloh. Ina has a soft-edged, folksy voice and Michaela has an r&b/soul inflected one and the chorus doesn’t sound a bit like either of them. And now cast your mind back to the Circus tour and “You Oughta Know” - B’s voice on the chorus of that song sounds very like the voice on the chorus of HATLM, and I guess the only reason why fans believe it was her singing “You Oughta Know” is that they saw her doing it.
I hesitate to mention good quality headphones and a good quality CD player, but if you use them you can hear the wide stereo spacing of the double tracked vocals in the chorus become narrower, then centralised just before the end, and at that point it’s easy to tell that it’s Britney. During the final (repeated) chorus, a center track joins the double tracked stereo pair and here again this simply emphasizes that it’s Britney singing. There is no “blending” of another voice - that is just a figment of some people’s imaginations. In Verse Part 2, there are two voices singing in harmony, but this is Britney providing a background vocal to herself. The only place where the other background vocalists are employed is in the bridge: “Someone by the bar keeps looking at us dancing...”
Having gotten all of that out of the way, I think we can now simply give our unconditional appreciation to the wonder of Britney’s vocals on “He About To Lose Me”. It’s like a reaffirmation that she can still do it, still sing with power and pull out that warm, emotional voice that charmed and captivated us all those years ago, and what is more, show us that she sounds a great deal better with her voice free of the processing and robo-Britney mannerisms that have invaded much of “Femme Fatale”.
Instrumental accompaniment is mostly guitar and percussion. There is no bass track as such. A simple strummed guitar plays through most of the song, but engages in more assertive chords that provide counterpoint to the vocal melody during the chorus. A jagged, stabbing fuzzy guitar joins the kick drum at 0.25 and both of them play through most of the song, only falling silent at the ends of the first two choruses.
Imagining your head as a stereo soundstage and listening with headphones, the strummed guitar and percussion are at center and the fuzzy guitar is split between left and right channels. Britney’svocal during Verse Part 1 is at center, with the “eh-ah-eh-eh” parts split into a narrow stereo pair. In Verse Part 2 her lead vocal is at center and the harmony she sings with herself is in a narrow double-tracked stereo pair. In the first two choruses, as mentioned above, Britney’s voice is double-tracked as a wider stereo pair, but in the final chorus she is also singing at center. In the bridge, Britney is at center and the background vocalists can be heard at various locations.
In summary, “He About To Lose Me” is based upon simplicity - a simply constructed song, simple production and stripped down accompaniment. And this simplicity does not undermine or detract anything at all. Rather, it allows the beauty of the song and of Britney’s vocals to shine all the more brightly for not being masked in synthesized artifice.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Britney Spears and that Strange Sense of Longing
This is probably the weirdest article ever written about Britney, but I’m going ahead with it anyway. I know some readers will be saying “What was she smokin’ that day?!” but I think it was worthwhile to write it in the hope of reaching out to a few fans who will know EXACTLY what I’m talking about. I’m going to talk about a phenomenon that is almost inexplicable, yet is experienced in some way by many people. I want to see if any readers agree with me that Britney’s singing evokes this experience.
I’ll begin with a sidestep. One afternoon a few weeks ago, while I was working, I began to think about a certain song. And even thinking about it made me cry. Not just once - seven times in the same afternoon. I just couldn’t think about this song without being taken over by some strange emotions that I couldn’t quite identify. In my mind I kept being transported towards a different place and time, with its own emotional atmosphere. It felt important and significant that I could almost glimpse this place and time, yet if I tried to focus directly on it or analyse it, the feelings began to disappear.
The song was “The Folks Who Live On The Hill” as sung by Peggy Lee. She was a gentle, sweet, sensitive singer and she chose to sing this song in the softest voice imaginable. No belting, no histrionics, no show-off climaxes. The song was originally from a stage musical and wasn’t sentimental - it was actually quite humorous, in its own subtle way, poking fun at some “white picket fences” folksy imaginings. The way Peggy Lee sang it seemed so straight and simple, yet for many listeners it taps directly into a deep emotional well and is more profound than funny.
In my recent review of “Unusual You” I referred briefly to the experience of “Sehnsucht”, and this, I believe, is what surrounds Peggy Lee’s “The Folks Who Live On the Hill”. “Sehnsucht” is a German word that, in its most literal sense, means “longing”, but the experience is a lot more complex and intangible than that. The great Irish-born writer C.S. Lewis, in attempting to explain it, admits that “I am trying to rip open the inconsolable secret in each one of you - the secret which hurts so much that you take your revenge on it by calling it names like Nostalgia and Romanticism... the secret we cannot hide and cannot tell though we desire to do both. We cannot tell it because it is a desire for something which has never actually appeared in our experience.”
He continues: “[The poet] Wordsworth’s expedient was to identify it with certain moments in his own past. But all this is a cheat. If Wordsworth had gone back to those moments in the past, he would not have found the thing itself, but only the reminder of it; what he remembered would turn out to be itself a remembering. The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things—the beauty, the memory of our own past—are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never yet visited.”
Wikipedia makes a gallant effort at a slightly more prosaic account: “It is sometimes felt as a longing for a far off country, but not a particular earthly land which we can identify... At other times it may seem as a longing for a someone or even a something. But the majority of people who experience it are not conscious of what or who the longed for object may be. Indeed, the longing is of such profundity and intensity that the subject may immediately be only aware of the emotion itself and not cognizant that there is a something longed for. Yet though one may not be able to identify just what it is, the experience is one of such significance that ordinary reality may pale in comparison...”
Triggers for these experiences vary widely from individual to individual. C.S. Lewis gives his as “the smell of bonfire, the sound of wild ducks flying overhead, the title of The Well at the World's End, the opening lines of "Kubla Khan", the morning cobwebs in late summer, or the noise of falling waves.” The Transition Gallery’s JT 09 project refers to “images of intense urban wilderness... washed out beautiful boys... fragile Northern landscapes”.
For me, it’s the image of Baby and Joe in Peggy Lee’s song (even typing those words makes me cry), some Grant Wood paintings, the song "Wonderful, wonderful" by Johnny Mathis, the low, pink afternoon winter sun in a suburban street, overhead power lines, street life (hearing “Summertime” by Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince actually makes me feel faint) and.... Britney Spears’ voice. The songs that hit me hardest are a random enough selection, but here are a few examples: “Anticipating”, “Radar”, “Unusual You”, “Tell me what ya sippin’ on”, “State of Grace”, “Sugarfall” and “Why Should I Be Sad”. Some of these songs should be superficial and jolly, but Britney transforms them into something almost mystical. They all make me experience Sehnsucht. The words don’t matter. I barely hear them.The sound of Britney’s voice transports me to the edge of that elusive, mysterious place.
Is it because Britney’s soft, sweet voice has the same direct entree to the emotions as Peggy Lee’s? Do her off-stage whispers touch us on a subconscious level? Is it that the impression she gives of innocence and naivety makes us long for things we didn't understand as children? Is it because she ends words and phrases with a gentle, fading cadence instead of a sharp, snappy assertiveness? Is it because she always chooses quietness and stillness over loudness and drama? Is it because her unusual phrasing, steering away from conventional singers’ mannerisms, sounds so honest and heartfelt? Is it the way she sometimes holds back a fraction from the beat and seems to make time slow down? Is it because it sounds as if SHE is always searching for that longed-for thing that she can almost glimpse out of the corner of her eye but never quite grasp? This is a woman who has been on a long spiritual journey.
I threw out a lot of options there, and I’m not going to vote for any of them. I don’t want to influence you in any direction because this whole thing is very personal. I know it’s a very different thing to analyse how she creates the experience of Sehnsucht than to analyse the experience of Sehnsucht she creates, but each of you is probably hearing different things, and responding to different songs in different ways. Even if a lot of us agree that she calls up strange and elusive feelings with her singing, we may not be in agreement about exactly how she does it. I'd love to hear what you think, because I want to develop this subject further.
I have to finish on an anxious but hopeful note. The “Blackout” era was particularly rich in these strangely evocative vocals, and “Circus” has its moments, although far fewer of them. “Femme Fatale” hasn’t any, in my opinion - but that is ONLY my opinion. As she approaches her 30s, Britney seems to be leaving that searching phase of her life and moving into a more settled one, and its possible that this might be reflected in her singing. “Femme Fatale” seems less subtle, less sensitive, more assertive, more functional. Yet somehow I believe in that dear, sweet soul of hers, that big heart, that modesty, that lack of confidence, that awkwardness, that other-worldliness. I think she’ll continue to touch our deepest, most unfathomable emotions. I hope and pray that she does, because artists like this may only come along once in a lifetime.
I’ll begin with a sidestep. One afternoon a few weeks ago, while I was working, I began to think about a certain song. And even thinking about it made me cry. Not just once - seven times in the same afternoon. I just couldn’t think about this song without being taken over by some strange emotions that I couldn’t quite identify. In my mind I kept being transported towards a different place and time, with its own emotional atmosphere. It felt important and significant that I could almost glimpse this place and time, yet if I tried to focus directly on it or analyse it, the feelings began to disappear.
The song was “The Folks Who Live On The Hill” as sung by Peggy Lee. She was a gentle, sweet, sensitive singer and she chose to sing this song in the softest voice imaginable. No belting, no histrionics, no show-off climaxes. The song was originally from a stage musical and wasn’t sentimental - it was actually quite humorous, in its own subtle way, poking fun at some “white picket fences” folksy imaginings. The way Peggy Lee sang it seemed so straight and simple, yet for many listeners it taps directly into a deep emotional well and is more profound than funny.
In my recent review of “Unusual You” I referred briefly to the experience of “Sehnsucht”, and this, I believe, is what surrounds Peggy Lee’s “The Folks Who Live On the Hill”. “Sehnsucht” is a German word that, in its most literal sense, means “longing”, but the experience is a lot more complex and intangible than that. The great Irish-born writer C.S. Lewis, in attempting to explain it, admits that “I am trying to rip open the inconsolable secret in each one of you - the secret which hurts so much that you take your revenge on it by calling it names like Nostalgia and Romanticism... the secret we cannot hide and cannot tell though we desire to do both. We cannot tell it because it is a desire for something which has never actually appeared in our experience.”
He continues: “[The poet] Wordsworth’s expedient was to identify it with certain moments in his own past. But all this is a cheat. If Wordsworth had gone back to those moments in the past, he would not have found the thing itself, but only the reminder of it; what he remembered would turn out to be itself a remembering. The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things—the beauty, the memory of our own past—are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never yet visited.”
Wikipedia makes a gallant effort at a slightly more prosaic account: “It is sometimes felt as a longing for a far off country, but not a particular earthly land which we can identify... At other times it may seem as a longing for a someone or even a something. But the majority of people who experience it are not conscious of what or who the longed for object may be. Indeed, the longing is of such profundity and intensity that the subject may immediately be only aware of the emotion itself and not cognizant that there is a something longed for. Yet though one may not be able to identify just what it is, the experience is one of such significance that ordinary reality may pale in comparison...”
Triggers for these experiences vary widely from individual to individual. C.S. Lewis gives his as “the smell of bonfire, the sound of wild ducks flying overhead, the title of The Well at the World's End, the opening lines of "Kubla Khan", the morning cobwebs in late summer, or the noise of falling waves.” The Transition Gallery’s JT 09 project refers to “images of intense urban wilderness... washed out beautiful boys... fragile Northern landscapes”.
For me, it’s the image of Baby and Joe in Peggy Lee’s song (even typing those words makes me cry), some Grant Wood paintings, the song "Wonderful, wonderful" by Johnny Mathis, the low, pink afternoon winter sun in a suburban street, overhead power lines, street life (hearing “Summertime” by Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince actually makes me feel faint) and.... Britney Spears’ voice. The songs that hit me hardest are a random enough selection, but here are a few examples: “Anticipating”, “Radar”, “Unusual You”, “Tell me what ya sippin’ on”, “State of Grace”, “Sugarfall” and “Why Should I Be Sad”. Some of these songs should be superficial and jolly, but Britney transforms them into something almost mystical. They all make me experience Sehnsucht. The words don’t matter. I barely hear them.The sound of Britney’s voice transports me to the edge of that elusive, mysterious place.
Is it because Britney’s soft, sweet voice has the same direct entree to the emotions as Peggy Lee’s? Do her off-stage whispers touch us on a subconscious level? Is it that the impression she gives of innocence and naivety makes us long for things we didn't understand as children? Is it because she ends words and phrases with a gentle, fading cadence instead of a sharp, snappy assertiveness? Is it because she always chooses quietness and stillness over loudness and drama? Is it because her unusual phrasing, steering away from conventional singers’ mannerisms, sounds so honest and heartfelt? Is it the way she sometimes holds back a fraction from the beat and seems to make time slow down? Is it because it sounds as if SHE is always searching for that longed-for thing that she can almost glimpse out of the corner of her eye but never quite grasp? This is a woman who has been on a long spiritual journey.
I threw out a lot of options there, and I’m not going to vote for any of them. I don’t want to influence you in any direction because this whole thing is very personal. I know it’s a very different thing to analyse how she creates the experience of Sehnsucht than to analyse the experience of Sehnsucht she creates, but each of you is probably hearing different things, and responding to different songs in different ways. Even if a lot of us agree that she calls up strange and elusive feelings with her singing, we may not be in agreement about exactly how she does it. I'd love to hear what you think, because I want to develop this subject further.
I have to finish on an anxious but hopeful note. The “Blackout” era was particularly rich in these strangely evocative vocals, and “Circus” has its moments, although far fewer of them. “Femme Fatale” hasn’t any, in my opinion - but that is ONLY my opinion. As she approaches her 30s, Britney seems to be leaving that searching phase of her life and moving into a more settled one, and its possible that this might be reflected in her singing. “Femme Fatale” seems less subtle, less sensitive, more assertive, more functional. Yet somehow I believe in that dear, sweet soul of hers, that big heart, that modesty, that lack of confidence, that awkwardness, that other-worldliness. I think she’ll continue to touch our deepest, most unfathomable emotions. I hope and pray that she does, because artists like this may only come along once in a lifetime.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Image Revolution! Does she need it & what would it take?
Something came up in the PoorBritney.com debate on Britney’s image that got me thinking. I was thinking back to an article I wrote called “An icon has no image worries”, and at the time of writing I really believed this was true of Britney. This is an except from what I wrote, back around 2006:
“The media killed the old Britney. And if she had been a regular little teenage music star, that would have been the end of her. But the difference with Britney was that she knew what had happened, accepted it and decided to move her life on in a very different way.
The key revelation for Britney was realising that she had somehow become an icon. She even referred to that in her letters to fans. And the thing is, when you become an icon, you enter a kind of timeless, ageless existence. You become the sort of figure who only has to walk on to a stage to get an ovation. You get to be applauded just for being you.
Nobody cares that much about the grubby details of your personal life. When you’re an icon, whatever happens only adds to The Legend. Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, Billie Holiday, Josephine Baker, Edith Piaf, maybe Janis Joplin – what did stars like these have in common? They all had messy lives, relationship problems, addictions, breakdowns. And they were legends. You can’t be a legend unless you’ve been around the block enough times to have A Story.
Just having a successful showbiz career doesn’t get you A Story, it’s all the accretions of a life well lived by larger-than-life people with larger-than-life appetites. Compare Britney to [her peers]. They are great singers, they’ve made great records, they look great. But that’s baseline activity for big-selling stars. For whatever reason, things don’t seem to happen to them like they happen to Britney. No matter how quiet and hidden she tries to be, things just keep happening to her. Yes, it’s a curse – but it’s also a kind of perverse blessing.”
But that, you see, was when things DID keep happening to her. Since then, she’s gone so low-profile she’s almost subterranean. And that’s not a bad metaphor because she has pretty much buried herself. In our PoorBritney.com debate it became clear that Britney actually has no up-to-date image. And is it possible that you can de-iconify yourself? I guess it all depends on what you were iconified for, and by whom. If you used to be deified as a great dancer and now you’re not, and meantime the world of dance has moved on... Also, it’s pretty obvious that you can have minor icons as well as major ones, superannuated icons as well as current ones and so on. Diana Ross was once voted Queen of Pop ahead of Madonna. Barbra Streisand used to be the most talked-about woman in showbiz.
It concerns me a little that the Britney of old seems to have vanished some time around 2007-8 and left nothing but bad memories for those whose business it is to sum people’s life up in shorthand. Christina Aguilera was lucky, in a way. She’s still the “dirrty” but “beautiful” singer with a sexy image who took her clothes off for Maxim magazine. That’s a good one to stick with. Beyonce is still (even now) “bootylicious”, the “booty shaking” star. That one never gets old. Whatever Shakira used to be, she is now the “she-wolf”.
Britney has already been through most of the obvious transformations, a long long time ago. She was the fun, carefree but beautiful Katy Perry girl that every young girl wanted to be. Then she was the glamorous, sexy, edgy Rihanna-style girl. Then.... it seemed like she was yelling “Stop the magic roundabout, I want to get off!” It was like “How can I destroy this effing Britney monster whose face is on all the magazines?! I hate her! I want to KILL her!!!”
For months, fans such as myself looked in the tabloids with dread. Every day, there were shock-horror pictures of Britney. Every day she looked uglier, fatter, spottier, sluttier. She was rarely seen without a cigarette hanging from her mouth. She wore crude message T-shirts and torn jeans, she had her hair greasy and pinned up, she seemed to eat nothing but burgers and Cheetos. The media came up with the phrase “trailer trash” for her, even though she came from a respectable family, went to a good school and had never lived in a trailer.
You can’t get rid of an image like that just by cleaning up, brushing your hair and teeth and going back to your day-job. You have to replace it with something equally powerful, dramatic and unforgettable. “Pregnant Britney” didn’t really do the job, even though the nude pictures were beautiful and striking. But what Britney did next was so unexpected and so stunning, it actually did make people forget the “trailer trash” days.
This was the era of “crazy Britney”, the toxic singer who ran amok around town, drove through red lights, drove with her baby on her knee, almost dropped her baby in the street, dumped her husband by text, partied heartily with Paris Hilton, barely contested a damaging custody battle that consisted of little more than K.Fed’s team smearing her reputation, lost her kids, shaved her head, hit a car with an umbrella, went into rehab, then was forcibly hospitalized with mental health issues.
And there, for most of those in the media whose those business it is to sum people’s life up in shorthand, the story ended. She hasn’t done anything remotely crazy in 3 years, but, as before, cleaning up your act and going back to what you did before you became notorious just isn’t enough. If her icon/legend status is fading through lack of drama and subterranean profile, she needs yet ANOTHER dramatic, unforgettable, perception-changing image makeover.
The problem is, good news struggles to shove bad news out of the way. Usually, the only thing that can do it is a different kind of bad news. But if you’re clever, you try to think of a kind of bad news that doesn’t contaminate you. Like Rihanna getting beaten up by her boyfriend. It was all over the media, humanized her, made her more “interviewable”. She was the victim and no dirt stuck to her. Or you could take Cheryl Cole getting cheated-upon by her husband. Martyrdom helped her career enormously. The bad news that changes the shorthand of your media image must not be something done BY you. It must be something done TO you. I offer these thoughts to Britney with a nod and a wink!
“The media killed the old Britney. And if she had been a regular little teenage music star, that would have been the end of her. But the difference with Britney was that she knew what had happened, accepted it and decided to move her life on in a very different way.
The key revelation for Britney was realising that she had somehow become an icon. She even referred to that in her letters to fans. And the thing is, when you become an icon, you enter a kind of timeless, ageless existence. You become the sort of figure who only has to walk on to a stage to get an ovation. You get to be applauded just for being you.
Nobody cares that much about the grubby details of your personal life. When you’re an icon, whatever happens only adds to The Legend. Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, Billie Holiday, Josephine Baker, Edith Piaf, maybe Janis Joplin – what did stars like these have in common? They all had messy lives, relationship problems, addictions, breakdowns. And they were legends. You can’t be a legend unless you’ve been around the block enough times to have A Story.
Just having a successful showbiz career doesn’t get you A Story, it’s all the accretions of a life well lived by larger-than-life people with larger-than-life appetites. Compare Britney to [her peers]. They are great singers, they’ve made great records, they look great. But that’s baseline activity for big-selling stars. For whatever reason, things don’t seem to happen to them like they happen to Britney. No matter how quiet and hidden she tries to be, things just keep happening to her. Yes, it’s a curse – but it’s also a kind of perverse blessing.”
But that, you see, was when things DID keep happening to her. Since then, she’s gone so low-profile she’s almost subterranean. And that’s not a bad metaphor because she has pretty much buried herself. In our PoorBritney.com debate it became clear that Britney actually has no up-to-date image. And is it possible that you can de-iconify yourself? I guess it all depends on what you were iconified for, and by whom. If you used to be deified as a great dancer and now you’re not, and meantime the world of dance has moved on... Also, it’s pretty obvious that you can have minor icons as well as major ones, superannuated icons as well as current ones and so on. Diana Ross was once voted Queen of Pop ahead of Madonna. Barbra Streisand used to be the most talked-about woman in showbiz.
It concerns me a little that the Britney of old seems to have vanished some time around 2007-8 and left nothing but bad memories for those whose business it is to sum people’s life up in shorthand. Christina Aguilera was lucky, in a way. She’s still the “dirrty” but “beautiful” singer with a sexy image who took her clothes off for Maxim magazine. That’s a good one to stick with. Beyonce is still (even now) “bootylicious”, the “booty shaking” star. That one never gets old. Whatever Shakira used to be, she is now the “she-wolf”.
Britney has already been through most of the obvious transformations, a long long time ago. She was the fun, carefree but beautiful Katy Perry girl that every young girl wanted to be. Then she was the glamorous, sexy, edgy Rihanna-style girl. Then.... it seemed like she was yelling “Stop the magic roundabout, I want to get off!” It was like “How can I destroy this effing Britney monster whose face is on all the magazines?! I hate her! I want to KILL her!!!”
For months, fans such as myself looked in the tabloids with dread. Every day, there were shock-horror pictures of Britney. Every day she looked uglier, fatter, spottier, sluttier. She was rarely seen without a cigarette hanging from her mouth. She wore crude message T-shirts and torn jeans, she had her hair greasy and pinned up, she seemed to eat nothing but burgers and Cheetos. The media came up with the phrase “trailer trash” for her, even though she came from a respectable family, went to a good school and had never lived in a trailer.
You can’t get rid of an image like that just by cleaning up, brushing your hair and teeth and going back to your day-job. You have to replace it with something equally powerful, dramatic and unforgettable. “Pregnant Britney” didn’t really do the job, even though the nude pictures were beautiful and striking. But what Britney did next was so unexpected and so stunning, it actually did make people forget the “trailer trash” days.
This was the era of “crazy Britney”, the toxic singer who ran amok around town, drove through red lights, drove with her baby on her knee, almost dropped her baby in the street, dumped her husband by text, partied heartily with Paris Hilton, barely contested a damaging custody battle that consisted of little more than K.Fed’s team smearing her reputation, lost her kids, shaved her head, hit a car with an umbrella, went into rehab, then was forcibly hospitalized with mental health issues.
And there, for most of those in the media whose those business it is to sum people’s life up in shorthand, the story ended. She hasn’t done anything remotely crazy in 3 years, but, as before, cleaning up your act and going back to what you did before you became notorious just isn’t enough. If her icon/legend status is fading through lack of drama and subterranean profile, she needs yet ANOTHER dramatic, unforgettable, perception-changing image makeover.
The problem is, good news struggles to shove bad news out of the way. Usually, the only thing that can do it is a different kind of bad news. But if you’re clever, you try to think of a kind of bad news that doesn’t contaminate you. Like Rihanna getting beaten up by her boyfriend. It was all over the media, humanized her, made her more “interviewable”. She was the victim and no dirt stuck to her. Or you could take Cheryl Cole getting cheated-upon by her husband. Martyrdom helped her career enormously. The bad news that changes the shorthand of your media image must not be something done BY you. It must be something done TO you. I offer these thoughts to Britney with a nod and a wink!
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Hug-gate!
Some of Britney’s fans like nothing better than a chance to pick holes in something she’s done, no matter how small and insignificant. So they were more than ready to jump on her when they read an account from one of her Meet and Greets, which went something like this: “I asked for a hug at the meet and greet tonight. I was the first person in line and nobody said what was allowed, and when I asked her for a hug she hesitated and looked at Larry and he shook his head. But I didn’t care. I told her I loved her, and she thanked me and was really sweet and gave me a tour book....”
I read this and I have to confess that my sense of outrage fell quite a way short of what some fans around the forums were feeling. “What the hell is gonna happen to her if someone hugs her?” one of them demanded to know. “Will she implode from human connection? This is why there is no way I'd pay to meet her, it's complete exploitation of her fans’ loyalty. The fact that this guy was OK with it, then shows his pic where she looks like she'd rather be anywhere else just goes to show how her management are taking the fans for a ride and the fans are letting them do it!”
One thoughtful fan pondered, “Do you think it'd be good if ‘Britney refuses hug request from fan’ became a big story? Obviously it wouldn’t be good press, but it might make her team realise that this kind of thing is really not good enough. These fans may have waited over a decade to meet her and tell her how much they love her, then they’re treated like freaks who need to be kept at a distance! It must be a horrible feeling, especially when you've paid $1000 for the privilege!”
However, it was reported elsewhere that some fans were receiving hugs! It was all very confusing, and eventually one fan asked Felicia if it was OK to ask Britney for a hug and she replied "They don't really like people hugging her unless she's wearing the robe to make sure her costumes don't get messed up but you can ask anyway." Apparently it wasn’t as much a personality deficiency crisis as a stage costume management issue.
But the outcry hadn’t ended. “Britney’s smile is SO fake and awkward looking in the meet and greets!”, stormed one fan-critic and others kept repeating that she looked scared. Eventually it was pointed out that Katy Perry looked just as awkward and uncomfortable as Britney in HER meet and greet pix.
I dunno. I won’t be paying for a meet and greet even though I’ve spent weeks of my life writing about Britney. I don’t feel comfortable hugging and air-kissing strangers and I don’t suppose she is either. Even if she accepts a hug, it’s not really going to be a closer encounter than a simple conversation, is it? What’s a hug from a stranger worth anyway? I’d prefer not to bother.
I recall that, in an early interview, Britney said “Because of the business I’m in, when people meet me they expect me to be like ‘Ta-DAAA!’ But actually I’m really shy...” Lady GaGa may hug her entire audiences but that’s not the point. She clearly isn't shy. But to Britney it feels awkward and unnatural and false, and nothing is going to change that. So what I'm thinking is this: if the awkwardness and artificiality of the situation were to be reduced or eliminated, it might be possible to engage her in a few moments of pleasant and memorable conversation. I know which I’d prefer to try.
I read this and I have to confess that my sense of outrage fell quite a way short of what some fans around the forums were feeling. “What the hell is gonna happen to her if someone hugs her?” one of them demanded to know. “Will she implode from human connection? This is why there is no way I'd pay to meet her, it's complete exploitation of her fans’ loyalty. The fact that this guy was OK with it, then shows his pic where she looks like she'd rather be anywhere else just goes to show how her management are taking the fans for a ride and the fans are letting them do it!”
One thoughtful fan pondered, “Do you think it'd be good if ‘Britney refuses hug request from fan’ became a big story? Obviously it wouldn’t be good press, but it might make her team realise that this kind of thing is really not good enough. These fans may have waited over a decade to meet her and tell her how much they love her, then they’re treated like freaks who need to be kept at a distance! It must be a horrible feeling, especially when you've paid $1000 for the privilege!”
However, it was reported elsewhere that some fans were receiving hugs! It was all very confusing, and eventually one fan asked Felicia if it was OK to ask Britney for a hug and she replied "They don't really like people hugging her unless she's wearing the robe to make sure her costumes don't get messed up but you can ask anyway." Apparently it wasn’t as much a personality deficiency crisis as a stage costume management issue.
But the outcry hadn’t ended. “Britney’s smile is SO fake and awkward looking in the meet and greets!”, stormed one fan-critic and others kept repeating that she looked scared. Eventually it was pointed out that Katy Perry looked just as awkward and uncomfortable as Britney in HER meet and greet pix.
I dunno. I won’t be paying for a meet and greet even though I’ve spent weeks of my life writing about Britney. I don’t feel comfortable hugging and air-kissing strangers and I don’t suppose she is either. Even if she accepts a hug, it’s not really going to be a closer encounter than a simple conversation, is it? What’s a hug from a stranger worth anyway? I’d prefer not to bother.
I recall that, in an early interview, Britney said “Because of the business I’m in, when people meet me they expect me to be like ‘Ta-DAAA!’ But actually I’m really shy...” Lady GaGa may hug her entire audiences but that’s not the point. She clearly isn't shy. But to Britney it feels awkward and unnatural and false, and nothing is going to change that. So what I'm thinking is this: if the awkwardness and artificiality of the situation were to be reduced or eliminated, it might be possible to engage her in a few moments of pleasant and memorable conversation. I know which I’d prefer to try.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
In Depth: Unusual You
“Circus” doesn’t seem to be many people’s favorite Britney album. I think it’s cruelly underrated and contains a lot of top quality material that was at the very cutting edge of pop in 2008 and still sounds fresh today. And it features several tracks that make me proud to be a fan. These include “Mannequin”, “Mmm Papi” and “Unusual You”. “Unusual You” is the Britney song I’m asked to write about more than any other. I’ve been told by some fans that when they play it to non-fans, they’re often deeply impressed, and amazed when they hear who the artist is.
“Unusual You” was written by Bloodshy and Avant and Kasia Livinstone, produced by Bloodshy and Avant, and mixed by Anders Hvenare. It features real instruments as well as the usual programmed sounds: keyboards, bass and guitar by Bloodshy and Avant, and additional guitar by Henrick Jonback. Kasia Livingstone provides “background vocals”.
“Unusual You” has the ingredients of a classic pop song. Its lyrical concept is unique, yet is very simply and unforgettably expressed. People sometimes complain that Britney’s lyrics are shallow or nonsensical, but in this case they definitely aren’t. And the song has a lovely, beautifully constructed melody in which every phrase follows naturally and logically from the one before. It’s a song you could be singing along to before your first hearing has even ended.
There has been a fair amount of rather futile debate around the forums on the question of whether or not “Unusual You” is a ballad. If we go by Dictionary.com’s initial definition “any light, simple song, especially one of sentimental or romantic character, having two or more stanzas sung to the same melody”, then it is. The origins of the word “ballad” are connected with dancing, so it appears that ballads don’t have to be as slow as some people imagine.
Since the words are important to this song, I’ll quote them here, using a composite of the best renderings I can find on the web. If you can improve on them with an authoritative correction, please let me know:
(Verse 1 Part 1)
Nothing about you is typical
Nothing about you is predictable
You got me all twisted and confused
It’s so new.
Up till now I thought I knew love,
Nothing to lose, and it’s damaged ‘cause
Patterns will fall, as quick as I do,
But now...
(Verse 1 Part 2)
Bridges are burning, baby I’m learning
A new way of thinking now,
Love I can see, nothing will be just like it was,
Is that because...
(Chorus)
Baby, you’re so unusual,
Didn’t anyone tell you, you’re s’pposed to
Break my heart, I expect you to,
So why haven’t you?
Maybe you’re not even human ’cause
Only an angel could be so unusual,
Sweet surprise I could get used to,
Unusual You
(Verse 2 Part 1)
There’s so many things, when I was someone else,
Boxer in the ring, tryin’ to defend myself
And the private eyes see what’s goin’ on
That’s long gone
When I’m with you, I can just be myself
You’re always where you said you will be
Shocking cause I never knew love like this
Could exist.
(Verse 2 Part 2)
Tables are turnin’, my heart is soarin’
You’ll never let me down,
Answer the call, here after all,
Never met anyone
Like you.
(Chorus)
(Bridge)
I can’t believe that I almost didn’t try
When you called my name,
Now everything has changed.
(Final Chorus)
As can be seen from the above, the architecture of the song is both regular and straightforward. The words are bittersweet and ironic - a woman who is all too used to being treated with casual negligence, indifference and thoughtlessness is genuinely amazed to find someone who doesn’t behave that way. “Didn’t anyone tell you you’re supposed to break my heart? I expect you to, so why haven’t you?” It’s a “sweet surprise I could get used to”.
Yet the song doesn’t sound particularly optimistic. It’s as if Britney knows in her heart that the eventual heartbreak is inevitable, even if delayed for a while, and that her sweet surprise is a delusion. And come on, ladies - who calls their lover “unusual” and means it as a compliment?
The minor key sets a downbeat mood, and a strangely forlorn, empty atmosphere pervades certain phrases. Britney’s delivery, often conveying a strange and indefinable sadness and yearning, is a perfect vehicle for “Sehnsucht”, the intangible and unnameable existential longing for a someone, a something, another place, another time.... for most people, the magnetic pull of unspoken truths and unfathomable heartache that always lies beyond the grasp of language and of rational analysis. I know the concept of “Sehnsucht” may be difficult to grasp, so I promise to write a full article about it very soon.
Whether emerging from the mood of the song, or consciously intended to play a part in creating that mood, there are several musical sighs and grimaces, expressed in a variety of ways, where what should be joyous sounds depressive:
“it’s so new” (0:21)
“but now” (0:36)
the little downturned guitar note at 1:07 and 2:40
“hah ah ah ah, hah ah ah ah” (two alternating from each side)
“that’s long gone” (1:53)
The signature phrase “unusual you” doesn’t come off as celebratory, but reflective and rather sad. On “Boxer in the ring, tryin’ to defend myself...” - her voice catches on “tryin’”. And listen to “Now everything has changed” (3:23) - it’s not happy or cheerful, nor soft and loving, but harsh and metallic, like the announcement of a tragedy now, or in the making.
As is often the case with Bloodshy and Avant, most of the interest is in the innovative nature of the song, rather than in the production or mixing, which are unobtrusive and simple.
Imagining your head as a stereo soundstage and using headphones, you can hear that the majority of the vocal work comes from Britney herself. It’s not entirely clear if the high voice she harmonises with is hers, but the “hah ah ah ah” phrases definitely sound like Kasia Livingston. Britney’s lead vocal is at center most of the time, sometimes double-tracked or in harmony (also at center) and sometimes backed up by a double-tracked stereo pair divided in a narrow “V” between left and right channels. In the chorus, the “V” becomes wider. Kasia’s “hah ah ah ah” is placed at the extremes of left and right. It’s all very restrained, and doesn’t distract attention from the song.
The instrumental tracks are also pretty basic. The song begins with a fuzzy guitar at left and right, and a solo bass guitar figure. The fuzzy guitar continues throughout the song at various volumes and degrees of prominence. The rhythm tracks join in at 0:23 and are there till closing moments. They don’t amount to much more than regulation synth-drum thumping and three or four bass notes that are neither very deep nor very noticeable, especially during the verses. Synth-piano joins in for all the “hah ah ah ah” sections, the chorus is embellished by random synth notes, strums and bumps, and there are some synth strings during the bridge. “Now everything has changed” is followed by an amusingly Abba-esque keyboard riff.
“Unusual You” is a track that leaves a powerful first impression, and then implants itself in your brain, where this strange song, inhabited and infused by Britney’s subtle and sensitive vocal, nags away endlessly, with all its ambivalences, conflictions, wistfulness and dreamy yearnings.
“Unusual You” was written by Bloodshy and Avant and Kasia Livinstone, produced by Bloodshy and Avant, and mixed by Anders Hvenare. It features real instruments as well as the usual programmed sounds: keyboards, bass and guitar by Bloodshy and Avant, and additional guitar by Henrick Jonback. Kasia Livingstone provides “background vocals”.
“Unusual You” has the ingredients of a classic pop song. Its lyrical concept is unique, yet is very simply and unforgettably expressed. People sometimes complain that Britney’s lyrics are shallow or nonsensical, but in this case they definitely aren’t. And the song has a lovely, beautifully constructed melody in which every phrase follows naturally and logically from the one before. It’s a song you could be singing along to before your first hearing has even ended.
There has been a fair amount of rather futile debate around the forums on the question of whether or not “Unusual You” is a ballad. If we go by Dictionary.com’s initial definition “any light, simple song, especially one of sentimental or romantic character, having two or more stanzas sung to the same melody”, then it is. The origins of the word “ballad” are connected with dancing, so it appears that ballads don’t have to be as slow as some people imagine.
Since the words are important to this song, I’ll quote them here, using a composite of the best renderings I can find on the web. If you can improve on them with an authoritative correction, please let me know:
(Verse 1 Part 1)
Nothing about you is typical
Nothing about you is predictable
You got me all twisted and confused
It’s so new.
Up till now I thought I knew love,
Nothing to lose, and it’s damaged ‘cause
Patterns will fall, as quick as I do,
But now...
(Verse 1 Part 2)
Bridges are burning, baby I’m learning
A new way of thinking now,
Love I can see, nothing will be just like it was,
Is that because...
(Chorus)
Baby, you’re so unusual,
Didn’t anyone tell you, you’re s’pposed to
Break my heart, I expect you to,
So why haven’t you?
Maybe you’re not even human ’cause
Only an angel could be so unusual,
Sweet surprise I could get used to,
Unusual You
(Verse 2 Part 1)
There’s so many things, when I was someone else,
Boxer in the ring, tryin’ to defend myself
And the private eyes see what’s goin’ on
That’s long gone
When I’m with you, I can just be myself
You’re always where you said you will be
Shocking cause I never knew love like this
Could exist.
(Verse 2 Part 2)
Tables are turnin’, my heart is soarin’
You’ll never let me down,
Answer the call, here after all,
Never met anyone
Like you.
(Chorus)
(Bridge)
I can’t believe that I almost didn’t try
When you called my name,
Now everything has changed.
(Final Chorus)
As can be seen from the above, the architecture of the song is both regular and straightforward. The words are bittersweet and ironic - a woman who is all too used to being treated with casual negligence, indifference and thoughtlessness is genuinely amazed to find someone who doesn’t behave that way. “Didn’t anyone tell you you’re supposed to break my heart? I expect you to, so why haven’t you?” It’s a “sweet surprise I could get used to”.
Yet the song doesn’t sound particularly optimistic. It’s as if Britney knows in her heart that the eventual heartbreak is inevitable, even if delayed for a while, and that her sweet surprise is a delusion. And come on, ladies - who calls their lover “unusual” and means it as a compliment?
The minor key sets a downbeat mood, and a strangely forlorn, empty atmosphere pervades certain phrases. Britney’s delivery, often conveying a strange and indefinable sadness and yearning, is a perfect vehicle for “Sehnsucht”, the intangible and unnameable existential longing for a someone, a something, another place, another time.... for most people, the magnetic pull of unspoken truths and unfathomable heartache that always lies beyond the grasp of language and of rational analysis. I know the concept of “Sehnsucht” may be difficult to grasp, so I promise to write a full article about it very soon.
Whether emerging from the mood of the song, or consciously intended to play a part in creating that mood, there are several musical sighs and grimaces, expressed in a variety of ways, where what should be joyous sounds depressive:
“it’s so new” (0:21)
“but now” (0:36)
the little downturned guitar note at 1:07 and 2:40
“hah ah ah ah, hah ah ah ah” (two alternating from each side)
“that’s long gone” (1:53)
The signature phrase “unusual you” doesn’t come off as celebratory, but reflective and rather sad. On “Boxer in the ring, tryin’ to defend myself...” - her voice catches on “tryin’”. And listen to “Now everything has changed” (3:23) - it’s not happy or cheerful, nor soft and loving, but harsh and metallic, like the announcement of a tragedy now, or in the making.
As is often the case with Bloodshy and Avant, most of the interest is in the innovative nature of the song, rather than in the production or mixing, which are unobtrusive and simple.
Imagining your head as a stereo soundstage and using headphones, you can hear that the majority of the vocal work comes from Britney herself. It’s not entirely clear if the high voice she harmonises with is hers, but the “hah ah ah ah” phrases definitely sound like Kasia Livingston. Britney’s lead vocal is at center most of the time, sometimes double-tracked or in harmony (also at center) and sometimes backed up by a double-tracked stereo pair divided in a narrow “V” between left and right channels. In the chorus, the “V” becomes wider. Kasia’s “hah ah ah ah” is placed at the extremes of left and right. It’s all very restrained, and doesn’t distract attention from the song.
The instrumental tracks are also pretty basic. The song begins with a fuzzy guitar at left and right, and a solo bass guitar figure. The fuzzy guitar continues throughout the song at various volumes and degrees of prominence. The rhythm tracks join in at 0:23 and are there till closing moments. They don’t amount to much more than regulation synth-drum thumping and three or four bass notes that are neither very deep nor very noticeable, especially during the verses. Synth-piano joins in for all the “hah ah ah ah” sections, the chorus is embellished by random synth notes, strums and bumps, and there are some synth strings during the bridge. “Now everything has changed” is followed by an amusingly Abba-esque keyboard riff.
“Unusual You” is a track that leaves a powerful first impression, and then implants itself in your brain, where this strange song, inhabited and infused by Britney’s subtle and sensitive vocal, nags away endlessly, with all its ambivalences, conflictions, wistfulness and dreamy yearnings.
Monday, July 18, 2011
"Blackout was a dead end!" Debate!
Everybody's talking all this stuff about me
Why don't they just let me live?
I don't need permission, make my own decisions
That's my prerogative!
It was late 2004 and Britney Spears was entering the rebellious phase of her career. Back then she wasn’t the puppet people thought she was, and she decided to take control. She married Kevin Federline and sacked most of the other people in her life, including cool-headed manager Larry Rudolph. And she released “My Prerogative” as her mission statement. It was the first step on a musical path that led to the release of her celebrated album “Blackout”.
This was her “protest” era, when her music often hit out at the media, with their malign interpretations of harmless events in her life, and extreme reactions to her decisions. The UK tabloids - led by the now defunct News Of The World - had been going to town on her since 2002, and from 2004 the US media joined in as well. The fast-rising celeb-bashing photo agencies were making more money out of her than she was making herself.
After 3 years of this treatment, Britney launched “Blackout”. On her only outing as Executive Producer, she carefully and deliberately excised all softness from the album. Beautiful leaked tracks such as fan favorites “Sugarfall”, “State of Grace” and “Let Go” remain unreleased. Some people like to be skeptical about the extent of Britney’s involvement with the planning of the album, but Jive’s then A&R chief Teresa LaBarbera Whites confirmed that she was very much involved, and discussed it on the phone with her several times a day.
So Britney wanted this album to express toughness and control. It would be wrong to characterize it as all about anger and rebellion, but tracks like “Piece of Me”, “Freakshow”, “Toy Soldier”, “Gimme More” and “Why Should I Be Sad” do skew it somewhat in that direction, and there is an overall attitude that shows in her vocal style. It’s a “love it or loathe it” album. The New Musical Express loathed it but The Times loved it and placed it in the top 5 of their “Hundred Best Pop Albums of the Noughties”.
Now here’s the thing. Dr Luke commented that Britney is her own genre, but is “Blackout” her genre? Sure, it’s a great album, but the fanbase seems to be cooling on the question of Britney’s media fixation. One humorist satirised the tracklisting of her albums as:
Song about the media
Song about sex
Song about the media
Song about sex
Song about the media....
...and so on. I noticed too that in our recent PoorBritney.com debate, people were saying that we’d had enough of the media-bashing.
That debate asked if it was time for Britney to find a new musical direction. And this is the problem. “Blackout” was all very well and good, but it didn’t lead anywhere. Since then it feels like she’s treading water. The next album, “Circus” was a candy store full of goodies but had no particular direction or character. “Femme Fatale” is more cohesive but that’s down to Dr Luke’s control-freakery rather than any new visions or increased involvement on Britney’s part.
After “Blackout”, we were hoping for more musical revelations, more intensity, more complexity. We were hoping that the bar for the ultimate quality in pop would be raised even higher by Britney. But it’s like “Blackout” wasn’t so much a summit of achievement as a musical dead end. She can’t go forward from it, she can only go backwards. DISCUSS!
Why don't they just let me live?
I don't need permission, make my own decisions
That's my prerogative!
It was late 2004 and Britney Spears was entering the rebellious phase of her career. Back then she wasn’t the puppet people thought she was, and she decided to take control. She married Kevin Federline and sacked most of the other people in her life, including cool-headed manager Larry Rudolph. And she released “My Prerogative” as her mission statement. It was the first step on a musical path that led to the release of her celebrated album “Blackout”.
This was her “protest” era, when her music often hit out at the media, with their malign interpretations of harmless events in her life, and extreme reactions to her decisions. The UK tabloids - led by the now defunct News Of The World - had been going to town on her since 2002, and from 2004 the US media joined in as well. The fast-rising celeb-bashing photo agencies were making more money out of her than she was making herself.
After 3 years of this treatment, Britney launched “Blackout”. On her only outing as Executive Producer, she carefully and deliberately excised all softness from the album. Beautiful leaked tracks such as fan favorites “Sugarfall”, “State of Grace” and “Let Go” remain unreleased. Some people like to be skeptical about the extent of Britney’s involvement with the planning of the album, but Jive’s then A&R chief Teresa LaBarbera Whites confirmed that she was very much involved, and discussed it on the phone with her several times a day.
So Britney wanted this album to express toughness and control. It would be wrong to characterize it as all about anger and rebellion, but tracks like “Piece of Me”, “Freakshow”, “Toy Soldier”, “Gimme More” and “Why Should I Be Sad” do skew it somewhat in that direction, and there is an overall attitude that shows in her vocal style. It’s a “love it or loathe it” album. The New Musical Express loathed it but The Times loved it and placed it in the top 5 of their “Hundred Best Pop Albums of the Noughties”.
Now here’s the thing. Dr Luke commented that Britney is her own genre, but is “Blackout” her genre? Sure, it’s a great album, but the fanbase seems to be cooling on the question of Britney’s media fixation. One humorist satirised the tracklisting of her albums as:
Song about the media
Song about sex
Song about the media
Song about sex
Song about the media....
...and so on. I noticed too that in our recent PoorBritney.com debate, people were saying that we’d had enough of the media-bashing.
That debate asked if it was time for Britney to find a new musical direction. And this is the problem. “Blackout” was all very well and good, but it didn’t lead anywhere. Since then it feels like she’s treading water. The next album, “Circus” was a candy store full of goodies but had no particular direction or character. “Femme Fatale” is more cohesive but that’s down to Dr Luke’s control-freakery rather than any new visions or increased involvement on Britney’s part.
After “Blackout”, we were hoping for more musical revelations, more intensity, more complexity. We were hoping that the bar for the ultimate quality in pop would be raised even higher by Britney. But it’s like “Blackout” wasn’t so much a summit of achievement as a musical dead end. She can’t go forward from it, she can only go backwards. DISCUSS!
Monday, July 11, 2011
Time for a new musical direction? Debate!
Now that we have some months of hindsight with which to evaluate the potentialities and limitations of the "Femme Fatale" era, is it time to start planning now for a radical reinvention?
Recently I was talking to someone who knows and thinks a lot about Britney, but pretends not to. And we were asking ourselves how she could step up a gear or two and become, if you will, a “better” Britney than the one we know and love. We agreed that, while her core fanbase adores her, she doesn’t get a lot of respect from anyone else. The general public has been fed so many lurid stories by the media that they just can’t take her seriously.
Yet she can sing, wonderfully. She’s a genuine music fan, with a range of tastes that shows not only breadth but also depth. She has excellent musical instincts and highly perceptive musical sensibilities. She can interpret a song like nobody else in pop music today. An artist like this should be able to produce music that’s both profound and endlessly rewarding. We have glimpsed the artist she could be, with “I Run Away”, “State of Grace”, “Let go”, “Unusual You” and other wonders.
Tonight I was entranced by Rumer performing some of those beautiful, thoughtful, melodic songs from her album “Seasons of my soul”, and the thought running through my mind was that Britney could add so much of her musical personality to material like this and raise it to a level that we haven’t experienced since people like Karen Carpenter and Dusty Springfield were around.
Yes, “Femme Fatale” is a great, fun album of dance music, but it’s hardly deep. She sells the songs with her usual highly professional skill, but somehow you may feel, as I do, that they don’t leave her much room for maneuvre. Dr Luke’s formulas put her in a musical straitjacket. She’s too constrained by the genre to be able to express herself. Is this good enough for an artist who’s been at the top of her profession for 12 years and is now almost 30?
Even if it’s only for one experimental album, I think she needs to move into different territory, where she can grow as an artist, and spread her musical wings. I’m not suggesting that she should do it to gain respect from critics and the non-stanning public, though that would be nice. I want her to do it for herself, so she can feel what it’s like to drive an album with her own soul rather than be driven by some slick, self-serving producers.
So here’s the debate: would you like her to do this, or to stay as she is now? If you do want her to develop as an artist, but in a different way, how should she progress? What kinds of music should she be thinking of next time? What producer or producers should she work with? The friend I was talking to about this rejected the ritual calls for William Orbit and suggested Nellee Hooper instead. Would that work for Britney?
Over to you!
Recently I was talking to someone who knows and thinks a lot about Britney, but pretends not to. And we were asking ourselves how she could step up a gear or two and become, if you will, a “better” Britney than the one we know and love. We agreed that, while her core fanbase adores her, she doesn’t get a lot of respect from anyone else. The general public has been fed so many lurid stories by the media that they just can’t take her seriously.
Yet she can sing, wonderfully. She’s a genuine music fan, with a range of tastes that shows not only breadth but also depth. She has excellent musical instincts and highly perceptive musical sensibilities. She can interpret a song like nobody else in pop music today. An artist like this should be able to produce music that’s both profound and endlessly rewarding. We have glimpsed the artist she could be, with “I Run Away”, “State of Grace”, “Let go”, “Unusual You” and other wonders.
Tonight I was entranced by Rumer performing some of those beautiful, thoughtful, melodic songs from her album “Seasons of my soul”, and the thought running through my mind was that Britney could add so much of her musical personality to material like this and raise it to a level that we haven’t experienced since people like Karen Carpenter and Dusty Springfield were around.
Yes, “Femme Fatale” is a great, fun album of dance music, but it’s hardly deep. She sells the songs with her usual highly professional skill, but somehow you may feel, as I do, that they don’t leave her much room for maneuvre. Dr Luke’s formulas put her in a musical straitjacket. She’s too constrained by the genre to be able to express herself. Is this good enough for an artist who’s been at the top of her profession for 12 years and is now almost 30?
Even if it’s only for one experimental album, I think she needs to move into different territory, where she can grow as an artist, and spread her musical wings. I’m not suggesting that she should do it to gain respect from critics and the non-stanning public, though that would be nice. I want her to do it for herself, so she can feel what it’s like to drive an album with her own soul rather than be driven by some slick, self-serving producers.
So here’s the debate: would you like her to do this, or to stay as she is now? If you do want her to develop as an artist, but in a different way, how should she progress? What kinds of music should she be thinking of next time? What producer or producers should she work with? The friend I was talking to about this rejected the ritual calls for William Orbit and suggested Nellee Hooper instead. Would that work for Britney?
Over to you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)