Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

[hirez]

This television business (and by extension, the notion of 'fame' and people's curious reaction thereto.) is an odd one and no mistake. A set of bods roughing it mostly live on camera in Australia seems to have polarised opinion thusly:

a) Lydon! Hurrah! Sound fellow!

b) Lydon! Fucken sellout maan! Z-List-no-mark has-been!

Those taking the (b) option have me confused. When, precisely, did the chap 'sell out'? First paying gig? Signing to EMI? Appearing on 'So it goes'? Signing to the filthy hippies at Virgin? Appearing on Top of the pops? The US tour? The full-colour photograph in the Christmas Radio Times as 'Prince Disgusting'? PiL? Using a bunch of expensive sessioneers to record/tour 'Album'? Judge Judy? The talk-radio show? The VH1 (or was it MTV?) programmes?

I suspect the answer is "Your favourite artist 'sells out' when they do something you're not comfortable with."

And who the hell has enough of an ego to consider that someone who makes records you like shouldn't do anything to make you feel uncomfortable?

"But what about punk rock?"

What about it? The Stalinist idiots over at MRR bang on about that sort of thing. They get really stroppy if some band or other dares to rise above some arbitrary value of subsistence living and actually manages to eat regularly and buy fresh socks. For my sins, I know a few people in bands, and I want the buggers rolling in money. If only so I can ponce beer and backstage access... As was explained to me recently, the most important thing to remember is get paid. Words like 'integrity' are for those with private incomes or Journos who're on salary and doing the R&R-thing vicariously through whoever they've been told to hype this week.

Which reminds me: Punk was (among other things) about DIY. You don't buy rebellion from Camden Market or Hot Topic, you buy conformity. No matter how much money you wave, no-one else is going to do your rebelling, least of all some 40-something bloke in the jungle.

Comments

[naughtypixie.livejournal.com]

Working in the magazine industry makes you delightfully jaded to this sort of malarky. Firstly, everyone sells out. In my many years working in this industry i've never heard a single tale of a person who would avoid doing a magazine shoot/telling all about "that event"/or getting their respective genetalia out when offered obscene wads of cash despite any moral stands they would previously have had. Personally, i'd do the same but the offers in my direction seem to be somewhat lacking.

The ones who have my admiration are the ones who take the cash, get their respective tits out, and then turn it into something which actually advances their respective moral or social stand while being paid for the priviledge. I'd give you examples but I seem to be lacking in aspects of long term memory after a work do last night so you'll either have to believe me or actually do the remembering for yourself (which i'm sure you're capable of though I have no confidence in general LJ readership... thank god for exceptions is all I can say to this though).

As for the DIY punk, I should note that the concept of "rebellion" these days is NOT following the holy pages of Cosmopolitan in ones dress sense. I can see the shock in your eyes but believe me that people actually dare to do it. And be deeply disturbed that there is currently several "action groups" who are "studying the feasability of incorperating an 'alternative' style magazine into the current youth portfolio to increase the market share". And if that didn't scare the willies out of you... consider that i've actually used a similar statement once at a meeting recently.

[reddragdiva]

Magazines of that type are started roughly annually, aren't they?

Maybe they could buy Alternative London and get a proofreader.

Re:

[naughtypixie.livejournal.com]

In a mild way, though usually it's a few dodgy sorts trying to make a quick buck by thrashing the thing out on some macs in their camden apartment and sending to the local "fuck the environment, just print my mag as cheaply as possible" printers.

What i'm speaking of is the disconcerting approach of brand extentions of mainstream titles into the alternatives, and their seriously aquiring advertising budgets based on the increasing "alternative" demographic and all that malarky... can we say Cosmo Goth anyone?

Re:

[reddragdiva]

The peak of this malarkey was 1993-94, in the era of "grunge." No further attempts will surprise me in any way. Really. I provided research material for TV shows on "zines". Trust me.

_nicolai_ suggested to me (in casual conversation) that despite annual attempts, which serve to fill our wardrobes in the disposal sales six months later, the fashion world will never eat goth until they convince the rich that a ridiculously elaborate five-kilogram boot is fashionable. They always get the boots wrong - the fashion consumers consistently go for light footwear or, if it's a heavy boot, something sleek that tries to be unobtrusive. We're safe until Jade Jagger completes the pseudo-goth outfit with New Rocks.

(At which point I'm sure we'd cope anyway.)

Re: boots

[maluse.livejournal.com]

What about Mel B wearing New Rocks (http://www.iht.com/IHT/SR/101698/sr101698m.html)? Or were we just fortunate that this didn't coincide with one of the periods when goth was "fashionable"?