Music Note #11: Beyonce and Rihanna: Feminism is Complicated

In the past two week, pop divas, Beyonce and Rihanna have released songs that have stirred controversy and further opened up the discussion about feminism and women's rights. Beyonce's anthem "Run the World" and Rihanna's "Man Down" coincidently came out around the same time, however the latter surprisingly for me turned out to be more meaningful and empowering than the former. I remember listening to both to Destiny's Child's "Independent Women" anthem in 2000 and loving that song, but when I hear "Run the World," I do not feel as strong of a reaction.

 First off, that song, which was written by Beyonce, even though it is not really progressive because it is equating full independence with being able to buy things (materialism), at least called us "women," not "girls." Also, the entire song could be used as an anthem, not just one line, which brings me to "Run The World." Yes, it also focuses on "getting that check," but Beyonce's song have never been the most progressive things in the world. However, besides a lackluster beat, which she used from Major Lazer's "Pon De Floor", a song that has a questionable video, and that The Dream actually wrote this song, not Beyonce herself, the song is not empowering to me.

The only part of the song that is worth it is "Who run the world? Girls!" and toasting to the college grads. What does the line "Make your check, come at they neck" mean and what does "Boy this beat is crazy/This is how they made me/Houston Texas Baby" have to do with anything? I also do not see how "I think I need a barber/None of these n****s can fade me/I'm so good with this/I remind you I'm so hood with this" or saying "f*** you, pay me" is empowering. She sounds like she is trying to do a role reversal with herself and her man, which I do not think is the point of feminism.

The video is not convince me to like the song better either. No, I do not care that the girls are in revealing outfits, even though I think that today the focus on many female pop stars is to come off as sexual and seductive, which can lead to objectification of women. Yes, the dancing is amazing, but the video just looks Mad Max-ish and the "girls" in the video do not look like they are running the world, but playing the seductresses in order to rule the world. Watch the "Evil Demon Seductress" video at Sociological Images to know what I am talking about. The guys in the video do not even look phased by them as the "girls" seductively dance their way to winning the world. Nothing about this song feels personal....


On the other hand, Rihanna's "Man Down" moved me. Generally, I do not like Rihanna's music all that much. There are a few songs that I do like, but her voice in general irritates me to much to care (it works better when she sings in reggae or in a slower style). However, I do not like the criticism that has come down on her because of the song and video. This is a a heartfelt song about a woman feeling grief and guilt over killing a man and the video portrays a woman who is sexually assaulted and kills her attacker. After Rihanna released the video, she received criticism for the violence against the man in this video, but what about the violence against the woman who he violated.

Yes, murder is wrong, but so is rape or any other kind of sexual assault, and Rihanna shows that in this video. This man took something from her and she ended up taking his life; it is a consequence  to his actions. Moreover, it is not as if Rihanna is showing a woman who is glorifying herself murdering someone; she is stricken with grief in the song ("I didn't mean to end his life/I know it wasn't right") and video. If you want that, go listen to the Dixie Chick's "Goodbye Earl." Revenge killing in music is nothing new, so stop unfairly judging Rihanna. Instead try to stop what causes people to do those killings in the first place. Even Rihanna brings up the idea of "blaming the victim" when she sings about now being a criminal for killing the man who assaulted her. This video is more personal to me because it shows how complicated life is and we often do things we regret even thought it was a reaction to someone else's actions.

The Grammys: The Good, the Bad and the WTF?

Last Sunday's 53rd annual Grammys was a night full of surprises!

The Good:

Aretha Franklin Tribute: The show started with well-put-together tribute to the "Queen of Soul". Christina Aguilera, Jennifer Hudson, Yoland Adams, Martina McBride and Florence and the Machine's Florence Welch performed. While at times, the the notes were off and some of the girls screeched, I know they meant well. Yolanda Adams and Jennifer Hudson blew me away as usual and Florence Welch was surprisingly better than I thought she would be. Marina McBride sadly was a little flat and Christina Aguilera was trying way too hard. At least they sang some of my favorite Aretha songs!

Train won for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group for their song "Hey Soul Sister." That was a surprise for me because I didn't know Train had another album out and I've heard that song on commercials, not realizing it was them. I need to keep in the loop more.

Muse sounded great singing "Uprising". But now everyone including Glenn Beck (yuck) is saying Muse is calling for a "revolution." Or maybe it's the illuminati, haha!

B.O.B., Bruno Mars and Janelle Monae: B.O.B. was classy with his orchestra and monocle performing "Beautiful Girls", Janelle Monae stole the performance with "Cold War" and Bruno Mars tried with his "oldies but goodies" throwback to the Motown singing "Grenade, but sounded a little froggy. Sorry Bruno, still love you!

Seeing Jaden Smith make Justin Bieber's performance 100x better with his rap skills, however... (keep reading)

Bob Dylan, Avett Brothers and Mumford and Sons almost convinced me to go pick up a banjo and head to the country. Still it did have its uncomfortable moments, like the mentioning of a noose in the Mumford and Sons' song.

Cee-Lo sang "F*** You" as Big Bird!!!!! Some said he looked like a Liberace peacock. I thought it was hilarious and fun, especially with the Muppets. And Gwyneth Paltrow wasn't bad...See Gaga, that is how you look weird and make it work!

Norah Jones, John Mayer (looking like Johnny Depp) and Keith Urban sang one of my favorite COuntry song "Jolene"...John I hope you know that this does not erase that we black women have not forgotten your white supremacist dick comment...

Esperanza Spalding winning Best New Artist was definitely a shocker. Most expected either Bieber or Drake, but the upright bass-playing Jazz artist snuck in and took it right from under them. To all of the Bieber and Drake fans who are asking who Spalding is and/or are mad she won, get over it and check her out. She is talented and you may learn something; be respectful and open your damn mind!

Mick Jagger and Raphael Saadiq paid tribute to one of my favorite Soul singers, Solomon Burke. I was so excited to see Mick Jagger in his first appearance at the awards show performing "Everybody Needs Somebody to Love." You should have seen me jumping around in my room! And it seemed as if Mick didn't want to stop jumping around either...all that energy for a 67-year-old!

The Bad:

Sorry to all the Lady Gaga fans, but the debut performance for her song "Born This Way" was weak! Besides the song sounding like a bad Techno mash-up of Madonna's Express Yourself" and "Vogue," the dancing was ridiculous. This is what makes me angry -- Lady Gaga does strange stunts like coming to the awards show in an egg, but her music does not live up to the hype!

Miranda Lambert basically was boring--I don't even remember the name to the song--That goes for you, too, Katy Perry.

Rihanna performed twice! TWICE!!!!!!! First with Eminem, who looked pissed off all night and then with Drake. Hearing her once was enough, thank you!

And finally The WTF Moments:

The overly-sentimental beginning of Usher and Justin Bieber's performance made me want to gag...A Lot! Also, what was with the mortal combat ninjas and drummers in Bieber's perfomance; were they to mask how bland he looks and sounds in real life?

Lady Gaga said she wrote "Born This Way" with Whitney Houston in mind. While she probably would have sounded better, was saying that necessary?

Teddy Pendergrass tribute...what Teddy Pendergrass tribute!!!!!!!!!!!! First of all you have a group named Lady Antebellum (a reference to pre-Civil War times) doing the tribute and it was ONE song "If You Don't Know Me By Now," which was done while he was in Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes. WOW!!!!!!

Why were Kings of Leon on the same stage as Miley Cyrus?

Hey Grammys, you left an artist out of the Memoriam to those who past....hello, Guru, rapper from the 90s, member of Gang Starr!

Arcade Fire won Album of the Year...this was a WTF moment only because after seeing Lady Antebellum win award after award, this woke me up!

Eminem was called, "The most dangerously talented man in Hip Hop history!" REALLY?!!!!! Either this shows how much other Hip-Hop artists are failing or how much amnesia we have when it comes to Hip-Hop history. Ever heard of Biggie, Tupac, Rakim, Kool Moe Dee, Chuck D, KRS-One, Mos Def, Jay-Z, I could go on!

Music Notes: Cultural Extrapolation

"...Elvis was a hero to most
But he never meant ---- to me you see
Straight up racist that sucker was
Simple and plain
Mother---- him and John Wayne
Cause I'm Black and I'm proud
I'm ready and hyped plus I'm amped
Most of my heroes don't appear on no stamps..."

-- Public Enemy "Fight the Power"

A few weeks ago, I was watching the Kennedy Center Honors and as I watched Paul McCartney receive his honor along with several artists paying tribute to him and the Beatles, a thought popped into my head about popularity of certain artists. Worldwide, the Beatles are known as one of the most popular bands in Rock 'n' Roll history; some even go as far as saying that they are the best band or most influential band of all time.

However, my problem with this when some think that everyone feels that way. For instance, I like the Beatles, but I do not think that they are the best band of all time. Yes they were great songwriters, but as a band, they were sometimes too bland. Also, I know that there are a lot of people who do not like the Beatles and worse, cannot stand them. And that is okay with me. As a culture, we tend to put artists on a pedestal and portray them as gods. But the truth is cultural icons are not everybody's heroes.

We cannot automatically assume that just because an artist is popular, everyone loves them or puts them on the same level of cultural significance. Our different cultural, racial and social backgrounds and experiences influence who we consider our cultural icons and heroes to be. A white person from the Midwest may see Elvis as a Rock 'n' Roll icon, while I see Chuck Berry and Little Richard as more important Rock 'n' Roll icons. An artist may be a hero to one group of people and an adversary to another group based on different group backgrounds and experiences.

Moreover, racism, classism and sexism has had an impact on who is considered more popular or more of cultural icon. It is not a coincidence that the Beatles were idolized more that the Rolling Stones (the relatively wholesome image of the Beatles vs. the "bad boy" image of the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin), even though they were friends, or how Elvis is considered the "King of Rock 'n' Roll" instead of Chuck Berry or Little Richard. As Chuck D said "Most of my heroes don't appear on no stamps..." and most people in the dominant society never heard of my heroes.

Music Note #10: The McDonaldization of Music

What is McDonaldization? Developed by the sociologist George Ritzer, it is the theory that the American society and subsequently the rest of the world are taking on the characteristics of the fast-food restaurant. The four processes of efficiency, calculability, predictability (standardization) and control through technology, that McDonalds uses to create its food actually has harmful and irrational effects. McDonalds dominates the fast food industry and most of world culture. McDonaldization has spread to almost every part of our lives today, including the music industry.

First, efficiency, which is using the best and fastest method to get from one point to another. In this case, that is going from having no music to satisfying the music listeners with a ton of music. Music technology, like MP3 players and MP# downloads, have provided the fastest way to get a ton of music really quickly. No longer do people have to wait to hear music by putting on a record, tape or CD and they do not have to go to a store to buy it either. Also, music and computer technology makes it a a lot easier and faster to create music rather than actually playing the instruments or using analog. Second, calculability, which is more focus of quantitative aspects of the product (music) than the quality of the product. Today's music industry focuses much more on making the quick buck than the quality of the music. It does not matter how good the song actually is as long as the industry can convince people to buy it and make it a hit. So, just as the "bigger is better" concept with McDonalds (Big Mac, Quarter Pounder, large fries, large drink), music uses big theatrics and novelties (e.g. autotune,computerized beats) to sell a song. Do not get me wrong, once in a while using those are good, but when it oversaturates all of music, it becomes ridiculous. People might think they are getting a good song, but they probably have not really listened to how bad it sounds, just as McDonald eaters think they are getting a lot of food but actually it is not nutritional. Moreover, those who differ from the mainstream (but have quality music) and in result might not make as much money, are pushed to the side because music has become "calculable." It is based on how much one can make off of a song and using that same formula over and over again to make that hit and suck it dry.

Third, this leads to predictability (standardization) in music. Billboard charts, Top 40 countdowns, constant repeats of the same songs on the radio and artists that sound so similar that one can barely tell the difference between them are a few examples of the predictability in music. A music fan will hardly ever find songs that are alternative or underground on these. Music is slowly becoming full of "robots" as KRS-One put it. Listeners know what to expect when they hear mainstream music; just look at mainstream Hip-hop right now. Also, workers in McDonalds are taught to behave in predictable ways just as music artists (same subjects, same style of singing, etc.). They are told to follow certain rules to get a hit song and that diverting from the norm would not sell. Finally, control within the music industry. Due to technology of the different types of media, more options in mainstream culture appear to be unavailable. Anything that sounds or looks largely different is discouraged. In addition to that, as technology is replacing workers in McDonalds, technology is also replacing real instruments, real sounds and even real singers and rappers. "I don't need to be able to sing well as long as my voice can be fixed or enhanced by the computer and I do not need to be able to rap as long as I have a hot beat or sample in the background." Real artist are not needed, we have technology and we as listeners buy into that.

How does McDonaldization of music harm us? Well, a the rational system of MCDonalds produces irrationalities or deny human reason. It works the same in music. A song or artist that are actually good and have substance are not supported and bought, but music or artists that are basically of poor standard gets all of the attention, praise and sell millions. All over the world this is affecting the way we listen to music. McDonalds dominates world culture, and American mainstream music does too. Have you gone to another country and noticed the McDonalds restaurants more than the actual restaurants of the country? Are those restaurants seen here? No. Like McDonalds, our mainstream music is well known in many other countries, but other countries' music hardly ever tops the charts here unless the artist(s) come here. If a music fan wants to find out about music from another country or music that is not mainstream, he or she has to find that out on his or her own. However, since we are a "Culture of Now" (check my other blog later for that post), we are too lazy to actually want to search and few labels want to create the mediums to get them, so we keep listening to mainstream (like McDonalds customers going there because the food is fast instead of cooking at home or going to a healthier restaurant). Unless we make a conscious decision on what we eat and what we listen to, McDonaldization will continue to rule the world.

Music Note #9: Where My Female Rappers At?

Another reason why I love Old School Hip-Hop is the abundance of strong female rappers. In the late 80s to mid 90s, there was Salt & Pepa, Sha-rock, Queen Latifah, Monie Love, MC Lyte, Yo-yo, Da Brat, Lauryn Hill, the early Missy Elliot, the early Eve and the list goes on. What was different about these ladies and some of the female rappers out here today who seem to come and go. Well, first, these rappers had respect for themselves. Second, they did not use their body to sell their music because they knew their music was good enough to sell itself. Yes, they talked about sex and yes they used some profanity, but that was not what their whole career was focused on. They were focused on saying something important. Not only could these ladies stand up to male rappers and be just and good or better, but they also knew that they were not these guys' playthings. This is something that I feel today's mainstream rappers have lost.



































For example, in 1993, Queen Latifah did a song called "U.N.I.T.Y". in which she made it clear that a man cannot do anything he wants with her and that includes calling her a b***h or a h**. Her other song, "Ladies First" honored all the strong black women in history. Salt N Pepa's "Lets Talk About Sex" was an intellectual discussion about sex, not all vulgar. "Whattaman" was about the strong black men in their life that they loved (yeah, black love). One of the best known female rappers to use her mind and not her body was Lauryn Hill. Just listen to "Lost Ones," "Everything is Everything," "That Thing," and her earlier records from the Fugees.

Now, let's look at the mainstream female rappers who represent the declining essence of Hip-hop. I really do not expect any better when the male rappers mostly discuss a few topics: money, guns, h**s, drugs, cars, jewelry and yep that's about it. From the female rapper's side, we have Lil' Kim, Trina, Khia, Shawnna and others who feel the need to be in extremely revealing outfits, act like a slut or a h**, get implants, use the word b***h like it is a nickname, and speak about everything they do with such vulgarity (e.g. my butt, my boobs, how I gave someone a blow-job or how I am going to give someone a beat-down), just to sell a song. From what I see, that is only thing they are about and that is very shallow. I hear barely any purpose or positivity in their lyrics. That is not female empowerment or sexual liberation because she is still selling her body which at that moment belongs to the person (or people) buying it. Is this the image to be portrayed to young girls like myself? What makes it worse is that the public keeps buying it, a reflection of our declining culture.



So, what do I have to do now -- basically turn away from the mainstream to find a great female rapper and that's what I did. Artists like Amanda Diva, Ms. Dynamite, Keny Arkana (from France) and other stars in the making are what true Hip-hop is about, which is to make you think. Sex should not be what is selling Hip-Hop, it should be Hip-hop itself and these actual female Hip-hop empresses are doing that.



An up and coming female rapper who should be at the top: Miss Nana "D.O.F. (Death of the Female rapper)

Music Note #8: "The N-Word in Music and Pop Culture"

Ah, the infamous "n-word" or to put it more bluntly, "nigger" and our culture's mitigated counterpart "niggah." The word has become widespread within the Hip-hop and R&B community and throughout the Black culture. Not only that, many people within the Black community and even outside our community, make excuses for the word "niggah" because it a "term of endearment" and it has the "ah" ending instead of the "er" ending. You know what I think: that is a bunch of Bovine Scatology a.k.a. Bulls**t.

Just carelessly using the word shows me how far we have come as a people. Some of us have become so diconnected from our past that they do not even know who Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X are (if you want to know why we are so discoonected from history, check out my article on individualism: http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/artsandculturewithreese/). We have the audactity to forget the people who came before us, struggled for their freedom, were beaten, whipped, had hoses released on them, chased by dogs, lynched, and mutilated along with being called that word. Even worse, by using that word we also disrespect ourselves and give our oppressors easier access to oppress us. They have less to do because we already are saying what they think we are...idiots.

Why am I suddenly coming out to say this? Well, a number of reasons. It started a few years ago when I was watching Antwone Fisher. Hear Antwone's foster mother say to him "What's up, my nigga" freaked me out and disgusted me at the same time (knowing that she abused him too made it worse). That scene showed me that saying the word to someone is disprspectful even with the best intentions. Then, I heard that the famous comic Richard Pryor gave up saying the n-word after he went to Africa. Recently, one of my favorite rappers, Mos Def, refused to say it all on the set of the movie, Next Day Air. Basically, it has build up to this point.

First, to address what I said earlier (b.s. comment). Changing the ending of a word does not mean one is linguistically changing the word. For example, if you have a word that ends in "er" and let's say you have an accent and say it with a "ah" or "a" ending does not mean the word has had a change of meaning. Also, changing the ending of a word usually only means changing its tense ot the category of a word (verb, noun, adjective) not the meaning. Since, "the two words" of "nigger" and "niggah" are so closely related, a change of two letters will not change the hateful meaning of the word that has been around for centuries. Be realistic! Also, using it as a "term of endearmeant" means nothing. How would you like it if I called you "a piece of s**t" or "an a**hole," but I meant it in a good way like "my brother, my sister." Doesn't feel so nice!

In addition to that, the use of the n-word not only makes us look bad as a people (whether consciously or subconsciously), but it also sends mix signals to other races. In a way, it gives us the right to exclude others and exclude ourselves from everyone else. We, as black people have the right to say it, but as soon as someone who is not black says it, we get offended. It shows that we are still not over the word. I remember a few years ago when Jennifer Lopez said the n-word in the her hit song "I'm Real" and the media went into uproar over it. It also happened again when Fat Joe said it over and over in "Lean Back," but to less of an uproar. Also, a hidden rule within the Hip-hop community is that white rappers cannot use the n-word. Why is there different standards over who can and who cannot use the word. More and more people are feeling that it is okay to say the word now as long as it does not have bad intentions because of what the media is portraying.

The funny thing is people outside of the Black race use the word that was specifically used as a derogatory label for us, but do you hear other races or ethnicities widely using their own racial slurs towards themselves. Do you hear white people saying, "What's up, my cracker" or Hispanics saying "What's up, my Spic" or Chinese saying "What's up, my Ching Chong." No, because they have more respect for themselves as a people.

We also send mix signals to ourselves.If we are friendly with someone, we say "that's my nigga," but as soon as you are mad at someone it is "punk a** nigga" or "you nigga." Hey wait a minute, I thought this was suppose to be a postive word now?! How are we suppose to get over the word and move on as a people, if we keep using the n-word, especially when we have a bi-polar stance when it comes to the word.

Increasingly, I am having a hard time ignoring the word whenever I hear it used without thought behind it. It makes me uncomfortable. Why is it artists, including rappers (look at Run-DMC), who came before could go their whole career without using it and be successful, but our generation uses it everywhere like it is natural. If the world educated themselves about the word and its true meaning in history, people would realize how ridiculous it is to use the "n-word." Seriously, there is no point it saying the word and from what I have seen it has had a more negative effect on our culture than a positive effect. Yeah we need to let go of the word, but using recklessly to the point it becomes desensitized is not the way. Realize, you are not a nigger or nigga, unless you act like one (which sadly I am still seeing). So, please stop using it as a term of endearment! But if you want to have an intellectual discussion with me about the word, get back to me.

Peace and Love.

Music Note #7: Artistry vs. Entertainment

Artist: (n) one skilled or versed in learned arts; one who professes and practices an imaginative
art, a person skilled in one of the fine arts.

To Entertain: (v) to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind.
Entertainment: (n) amusement or diversion provided especially by performers; something diverting or engaging.


When you look at Christina Aguilera, do you think of an artist? Now look at Bob Dylan, is he an entertainer? It is the old art versus entertainment debate that has been discussed for decades. Also, it is one of the debates that irks me because it is a useless debate. Music in general requires a balance of both artistry and entertainment. In reality, any type of art is a form of entertainment in its basic nature, whether it be for oneself or for other people. The term "entertainment" is often used in the negative sense to describe music that some feel are not "artsy," usually more pop-oriented artists, and some artists use it to justify why their music is better. Just because an artist is more commercial and popular does not mean that they are just entertainers and not artists.

What sparked my thoughts about this? Last week, I was watching Parallel Paths on BETJ and Rahsaan Paterson said that Christina Aguilera was not an "artist" and that singers need to get to a point when they are not just singers. But I find that to be close-minded (sorry Rahsaan, I still love you). There are different types of art and artistry. Singers are able to take a piece of material and creatively present it in a way that has never been done before or done differently than others. You might be able to write a great song or music piece, but that does not mean that you can perform it well and it works the other way, too. That is why the term "performing arts" exist. For example, an actor does not necessarily create the script in a movie or show, but they are taking what is given to them and performing it in a unique way. Someone said on another blog site that a DJ or a clown is not an artist, but they are because they are taking something and doing it in a creative or original way.

Labeling certain musicians as just entertainers puts a cap on their visibility as an artists. Michael Jackson wrote and produced many of his own songs, but is often seen as a pop entertainer, as well as Mariah Carey, too. Christina Aguilera is mostly known as an entertainer, but she co-wrote "Miss Independent" for Kelly Clarkson and co-wrote some of her songs on her recent albums. Many musicians do not just take what is given to them, they do have some creative input in the music they are recording.

Now as for having that balance of art and entertainment, it is more important than one might think. Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, Fela Kuti, James Brown, U2 and other influential artists did not only create songs with serious or significant subject matter, but also create songs that were catchy (e.g. "Get Up, Stand Up" by Bob Marley). Would you listen to those types of songs if they were boring to listen to? Compare it to food, if healthy food taste very bland, I bet none of you would eat it, but if it has flavor, you would (same reason I do not like ricecakes). The songs have to be interesting enough to catch your attention and keep in your mind (definition of "to entertain"). At the same time, just because some artists do not create songs with serious topics does not make them any less of an artist. Louis Jordan in the 40s wrote very comical songs that were silly and goof but he did them in a way that shows his originality.

However, that does not mean all art is great art. Some artists create music that is comparable to the work of a 3rd grader. It doesn't mean that they cannot improve as they get older and wiser, but as for right now, they suck! The again, my views and views of art in itself is completely subjective and what I think is worse and less meaningful music might mean something to somebody else. Moreover, it does not give someone the right to say that something that someone created is not "art" and just "entertainment." In the end, "art" and entertainment are vague words that cannot be specifically defined. So, would everyone stop arguing about it!

"Music Note" #6: The Death of Major Music Networks Part I

For the first part of this music note, I will be showing a video called "The Death of MTV" from the animated comedy sketch show, Supernews!, which is on the network called Current TV. The show is on every Friday night at 10 pm. Current TV is an Emmy-award winning independent media company led by Al Gore and businessman Joel Hyatt.

"Music Note" #6: The Stigma of American Idol, Disney and Other Music Franchises

If you have been around for the past 10 years, you have definitely realized the popularity of such music franchises as American Idol, Disney's Hollywood Records and Making the Band.

Although I do enjoy watching these shows and listening to the music from time to time (just for specific singers I like), what I have realized is the negative impact these franchises have had on the individual artists who are labeled as "American Idols," "Disney stars," or "The Bands." The stigma they create severely limits the creativity and choices that an artist who are under their name have. The potential for these singers or groups is there but they are forced to fit into a cookie-cutter formula for the large corporations.
They are not seen as an individual but as a product of that machine. An artist is put into the box that is suppose to guarantee success not artistic freedom.

However, for some, instant celebrity is given to them, but not always instant success. They are big and then the fame fizzles out; their fifteen minutes are up. Some of the biggest examples come from American Idol, itself. It took Kelly Clarkson almost two years after she won American Idol to prove herself as a musician and took her seven years to distance herself from American Idol stamp. Other stars have not been so lucky. Justin Guarini, Ruben Studdard, Clay Aiken, Fantasia Barrino, Diana Degarmo, Bo Bice, Taylor Hicks, Katherine Mcphee, Blake Lewis still struggle to distance themselves from it. Only Carrie Underwood, Jordin Sparks and Kelly Clarkson have had consistent success, while the show continues to be hugely popular. Others in the Top 12, like Chris Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson have had larger success. Only time will tell if David Cook and David Archuleta will have ongoing commercial success (I believe Cook will, maybe not Archuleta). That is why sometimes it is better not to win American Idol because that commercial image and sound of an "Idol" is automatically stuck to you (and you would have to sing those pop fluff songs after you win). Fans are willing to vote for them, but after the show has finished the season, they stop caring.

As American Idol is in its eighth season, it is becoming even more apparent that it all about the show, not the contestants. The three most famous people from the show are the judges: Simon, Paula and Randy. "Fights" between Paula and Simon and Randy's "Dawg" comments are as infamous as the terrible singers at the beginning. Shows are no longer live, though they claim to be, and it all appears to be scripted. Singers are kept on the show for not just talent, but also popularity (i.e., Sanjaya). More and more power is given to the judges, whose opinions are differ greatly from viewers. Even worse, the show has reproduced itself in countries all over the world, looking for more pop, assembly-line formed "Idols."

Disney's Hollywood Records is another culprit in marginalizing their artists. What Disney tends to do is over-promote and over-commercialize the same image and sound at the expense of their singers. In order to appeal towards the tween and teen market the label has used what I called the Disney Duplicate method in which each artist is manufactured like dolls. A few of the artists, such as the Jonas Brothers, Demi Lovato and even Mile Cyrus, have tried to have some agency within the Disney mold. The Jonas Brothers have performed with Stevie Wonder and performanced at the Ryman Auditorium, which included covers of "Free Fallin'" (Tom Petty), "Superstition" (Stevie Wonder), "No Air" (Jordin Sparks), "Waiting In Vain" (Bob Marley) and "American Pie" (Don Mclean). Demi Lovato has released songs like "La La Land" and "Don't Forget," and has trashed Disney on some occasions ("Disney has no tears"). Miley Cyrus released "Start All Over," "See You Again" and "G.N.O.," which have differed musically from her Hannah Montana sound. However, Disney has still tried to stifle these artists' artistic freedom. The label did not allow Demi to sing "I still eat at McDonald's" in her video for "La La Land" (instead she sang "I still eat at Ronald's) and told her that she needed a video that was not as depressing as the one she had for "Don't Forget." Also, Disney tends to promote the teen stars as perfect angels, not as young people who make mistakes. Controversy over private, but provocative, pictures of Miley and Vanessa Hudgens that surfaced on the internet, proved that they were human just like everyone else.

The third franchise, Making the Band, is the cursed one of all three. Starting with O-town and then taken over by P.Diddy to continue with Da Band, Danity Kane, Day 26 and Donnie Klang, the show has been popular due to the drama of the groups. O-town, Da band, and Danity Kane have disbanded, while, at this moment, Day 26 is on the verge of loosing a member or disbanding. All of the stars from Making the Band have had moderate success, but are more famous for the reality show and when the show ends, their fame fades. Moreover, with members coming from various backgrounds without a history together to form a music group that has chemistry will always be a problem. It is already hard to have a group with someone you known for years. What the show does also is increase the fame of P.Diddy and the drama of the groups is for his advantage on the show (to show his power as the CEO). Again, the shows are becoming more scripted for the benefits of the show, not for the artists' sake.

These music franchises may give quick fame and fortune, but it does not assure longetivity and orginality. When the fans become bored or when they and the artists grow up, it is up to the artists to break free and show their true ability or be lost in reruns forever.




Here's a treat: Jonas Brothers at Ryman Auditorium

Free Fallin'



w/ Jordin Sparks- Superstition and No Air



Miss American Pie



w/ Amy Grant- Baby Baby



Their amazing band w/ John Taylor and Ryan Liestman- Waiting in Vain

"Music Note #4:" Is Disney the Baby of MGM?

If you are old enough, you should remember the Golden Age of the Musical Film from the 1930s to the 1960s in which MGM studios was the king. If not, you may recognize some of the most famous musicals in history:



An American in Paris (1951)

Anchors Aweigh (1945)

Annie Get Your Gun (1950)

Babes in Arms (1937)

The Band Wagon (1953)

The Broadway Melody (1929, 1935)

Easter Parade (1948)

For Me and My Gal (1942)

Funny Face (1957)

Gigi (1958)

Guys and Dolls (1955)

High Society (1956)

Jailhouse Rock (1957)

Kiss Me, Kate (1953)

Meet Me In St. Louis (1944)

On the Town (1949)

Show Boat (1951)

Singing in the Rain (1952)

Viva Las Vegas (1964)

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Ziegfield Follies (1946)

In those days, it was good to be a triple threat- a singer, an actor and a dancer; even if you could not sing or dance that well, you had to learn (Marlon Brando had to with Guys and Dolls). Some of MGM's most famous stars included, Gene Kelly, Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney, Frank Sinatra, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds, Cyd Charisse, Donald O' Connor, Ann Miller, Howard Keel, Leslie Caron and Kathryn Grayson. The studio even had MGM Records, which was created in 1946 to release soundtracks to their musicals. But they also signed artists who were not in the musical films, such as Lou Rawls, Sammy Davis Jr., The Righteous Brothers, and Roy Orbinson.

Other studios produced quite a number of musicals that were hits, too. Paramount pictures produced Bing Crosby and Bob Hope's Road films, while RKO produced musicals with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Twentieth-Century Fox produced Shirley Temple films, musicals with Betty Grable and later the great The Sound of Music.

However, as films in the 1960s and 1970s began to focus more on being realistic, the Golden Age of Musical Film grew dimmer. Audiences became more cynical and the musicals of the past seem just too artificial and after a while it felt like studios were making musicals with no real or original story to them. But that happened in 1933, when the studios overdid the musicals, too...

It is now the new millenium and what do we have to replace MGM...Disney! Once again, other studios have released live action musicals, such as Cry Baby (Universal/Imagine, 1990), Chicago (Mirimax, 2002), Moulin Rouge (20th Century Fox, 2001), Dreamgirls (Dreamworks/Paramount, 2006), Mamma Mia! (Universal, 2008) and Hairspray (New Line Cinema, 2007). But, as wonderful as they are, these musicals ran in the same direction as the view in the 60s and 70s, which is more gritty and realistic films or films that have to do with social problems or contemporary issues (like a single mother who does not know who the father of her child is in Mamma Mia!). That sense of innocence and just pure fun is somewhat lost in those films (even though I do love them, too.)


Only Disney has been able to keep that sense of innocence by broadening the audience of these musicals to younger audiences. The age group have not grown old enough yet to be cynical when it comes to musicals and just enjoy them for what they are: two-hours of escapism from the world. Disney has had a long history of musicals, but it was mostly animated musicals in the past:

Snow White (1937)

Pinocchio (1940)

Cinderella (1950)

The Little Mermaid (1989)

Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Aladdin (1992)

The Lion King (1994)

Pocahantas (1995)

The Huchback of Notre Dame (1996)

Mulan (1998)

Now, mostly through telelvision, Disney has continued with the MGM style of musicals. The three High School Musical movies (2006, 2007, 2008) , the three Cheetah Girls movies (2003, 2006, 2008) and the new Camp Rock movie (2008 and the upcoming sequel) have revitalized the musical film genre. Also, like MGM, Disney has its own record company, called Hollywood Record, which has signed artists like the Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, Selena Gomez and Raven Symone. Although it has other non-Disney artists (Queen, Atreyu, Ballas Hough Band, Breaking Benjamin and Plain White T's), several of the artists on the label also appear is the Disney Channel shows and musical films. Most of the actors on the channel are also expected to sing and dance, even if they cannot do either well (they have to learn). De Ja Vu? In addition to that, others channels are trying to cash in, like Nickelodeon and their new musical, Spectacular. It even has certain stars from the channel, such as Miranda Cosgrove and Drake Bell, who are starting music careers.

In the broad American audience, the MGM-styled musical films are a part of the innocent, nostalgic past. On the other hand, on children-centered networks, like Disney and Nickelodeon, its soul still lives on...

Music Note #3: "Internet Killed the Video Star"

If you don't know what song I'm referring to in my title, it's the 1979 single "Video Killed the Radio Star" by the Buggles. It was the first video that premiered on MTV when it debuted its channel in 1981. The song describes the demise of the golden age of radio and the rise of television. Well, we have come to another passing of an era, the end of the music video and music channels. As with television, the technological change of the internet has decreased the importance of music videos on television to create stars and promote new music.

Michael Stipe, from R.E.M., even said that music videos are a thing of the past. "It is what it is, and I think anyone who refutes that is an idiot in 2008," he told the Associated Press. "We can all agree as a medium music videos really found their place in pop culture in the 1990s, [but they've been] replaced by the Internet in the 21st century."

Music channels like MTV, VH1, and BET now suck when it comes to music and music videos. Years before, someone could spend a whole day watching videos on these channels, but now you can barely see one or see the entire video. Slowly music shows are being replaced by mindless reality TV, or as I call it TV Ga-Ga (referencing Queen's song Radio Ga-Ga), that has nothing to do with the purpose that the channels had in the first place. Today, the only channels that have any significance in showing music related things are Fuse (which ranges from popular music to music in the 90s to underground music), VH1 Classic (older music videos, concerts, movies, etc.), BETJ (underground neo-soul music and classic soul, jazz, reggae, etc. specials) and BET Soul (more soul music).

Still, can you blame them for changing their programs? The previous ones are not making them any money anymore. With the introduction to the Internet, people can find out about new artists, new songs and download videos in seconds. They no longer have to wait in front of the TV to be shown a video and usually it is online before it is shown on TV. When they want to see it, it is in cyberspace waiting for them. Not only that, but also fans can take the songs they like and make their own.

Is the Internet changing how we listen to music? Queen sang in their song Radio Ga-Ga that we don't listen to the music anymore. Will the Internet make us lazy when it comes to finding out about new music and new artists because it will always be there waiting for us to eventually check them out? Or will we go back to actually listening to the music and listening for better music, not some of the throw-away stuff we have today? Also, how will artists promote their songs today without music videos? Only time will tell.

Music Note # 2: To make money or to make art, that is the question? ....

Commercialization vs. Art in the Industry

In today's music world, particularly in the U.S., it's all about making the big money. Music is treated like a fad and fans have a habit of being very fickle. Once you get tired of a singer, rapper or group, you move on to the next new thing and forget about them, letting them fade away slowly. This has always been happening, but now it seems to be happening faster and faster. 

The mass production or assembly line style of creating music today leaves little room for creativity. Songs today have very little chance of becoming classics as the songs that came decades before us. Moreover, artists are expected to fit into some kind of box instead of being themselves. Has anyone noticed how many singers or rappers sound similar?

This makes it hard for underground artists who are different from the norm to become mainstream or for artists to change their style (unless you're Madonna, Janet Jackson or Prince, then you fit into the box of being unpredictable and constantly having to change your style). Besides that, some popular artists can't even release certain songs that they want because the industry thinks it won't sell (e.g. Rappers are often forced to release club banger singles  but not intellectual based singles or conscious rappers, like Common, Mos Def, Talib Kweli and others are told to sound more like more popular rappers, such as Soulja Boy). 

People are unwilling to give these artists a chance because they are stuck in the never ending loop of being too close-minded or too LAZY to listen to something new since it might require them to think. For example, recently I posted about Heavy D, a popular rapper in the 90s, becoming a reggae singer now. I was open to the idea, but automatically people did not like it because it did not fit the mold of what he usually was, a rapper.

Unlike the U.S., other countries have a greater appreciation for music as an art not just to make money. When I listen to British singers, for instance, they are more artistic or more willing to take risks in music and I can hear the strong influence of previous artists in them. Also, other countries tend not to forget artists that came before and continue to listen to them even after we in America basically put a middle finger up to them. That is why man artists go to and still remain popular in Europe when they are basically non-existent here, such as in the career of Muddy Waters and other blues artists. 

However, the state of the music industry is the fans' fault. Like any other business, it bases its actions on demand. It gives us what it thinks we want based on what we buy. So the only way the industry can change is if we change ourselves. I'm still hopeful for the future.

Reese's Music Note # 1: Keeping an Open-mind When it Comes to Music

How's it going everyone, once again welcome to my music blog!!

This is what I am calling "Reese's Music Notes," which are thoughts that I have about music at the moment.

Today's discussion has to do with people out there who judge types of music without giving it a chance. 

I am the type of person who loves music in general. I like to call myself a "true music lover." If it sounds good, I'll listen to it because I have no preconceived ideas about the music.

However, there are people who do automatically have these ideas. My friends, Bani and Shao, and I had this discussion the other day.

I believe there are three types of people:

1) Younger generations who refuse to listen to older music

2)Older generations that refuse to listen to younger music

3) People who tend to listen to one genre of music in general 

First, let me say music is music. Obviously there is good music and there is bad music. But there is no such thing as bad types of music. Unless you're talking about Mongolian throat music. Now that's just creepy. 

So here is my judgment on those three types of people:

1) To my generation, older music is great. There is a reason it is called classics and oldies but goodies. The music is timeless. Without that music, we wouldn't have a lot of the music we have today (hint: many songs use samples from or are influenced by older artists). And sometimes I feel it is better than some of the trash music we have today. I find it completely ignorant when a young person does not want to listen to older music because it was made "40-50 years ago." So what! Stop being stupid! Your brain will not fry if you listen to it!

2) To the generations before us, you could stand to be a little bit more open-minded, too. The world keeps changing and so does music. You remember decades ago when Rock 'N' Roll came to be and your parents said it was not music. So, don't do it to us! No matter what you say, it will still be music. So, stop putting down styles of music, like Hip-hop. Just think about it, it is like poetry with music put to it. They did it during the Greek times and they're still doing it now!

3) Last but not least, one-genre wonders! The people who refuse to listen to other types of music for a number of reasons (for example, I'm from the ghetto, so I can't listen to Celine Dion). You can listen to whatever you want and music is universal; it doesn't matter who you are. It is important to be eclectic and well-rounded when it comes to music, especially if you're a musician. I listen to all types of music from Hip-hop to Pop to Japanese Reggae to Russian gypsies (Gogol Bordello rocks!) to Broadway showtunes to Swing to Classical music. I love a lot of things! 

So that's my commentary and basically outlines what my blog will be about. You will not just get mainstream music from this generation. There will be music from the past, the present and everywhere around us. So, open your ears and take a listen.