The problem with Britney

I admit it. I used to be a big Britney Spears fan. I own her first three albums--and this when I was listening to her right when downloading stuff from Napster wouldn't get you in trouble. I even watched Crossroads (albeit on an airplane where that was the only thing to watch).

The last few years, I've realized that her music is crap (and quite possibly has always been crap, although I'm not quite ready to admit that yet) and that the craziness of her personal life is simply too distracting to take her seriously as a musician. I really don't care about who she's sleeping with, who's going to get custody of her kids, or what her hair actually looks like. I think the things that she wears are absolutely hideous, but if she wants to, again, who really cares?

And so even though she headlined the VMAs on Sunday, I didn't even take the time to tune in, because I didn't care. I was surprised, however, on Monday to read how simply awful she was. This was her big chance. She was onstage at a major awards show, poised to show the music world that yes, she was back and better than ever. Anyone with half a brain would realize that if you mess this up, you're done. But according to anyone who covered the event, she just tanked.

So I had to watch the video for myself. Here it is:



There were two big complaints about Britney's performance:
1. She was woefully out of shape and it really showed.
2. She was lazy, not matching her lip-synching to the music and not putting any energy into her dance moves.

I'm not going to say a whole lot about the first. For someone who has had two kids, she looked great. I can honestly say that if I have that figure after I've had any children, I will be quite happy. However, I have no plans now or ever in the future to prance around on a stage in boy shorts and a bra. Especially when 19 years olds who have never even considered having kids are writhing around on stage next to me. Not a good frame of reference.

But I don't think it's fair to blame this all on Britney. There are plenty of female musicians who have kids and dress sexily on stage, even if they aren't quite as thin as they used to be. I would look to her costumer, and her publicist, and her agent, and ask them, "Why didn't you guys catch this? Why didn't you dress her in something that is provocative, yet doesn't accentuate her unflattering aspects? And can't someone find her a wig or extensions or something that doesn't look like it's been dragged through the dirt by a cat?" Come on. This is the headline act for the VMAs, and no one watched this performance in advance and had the authority to make some constructive suggestions about costuming? I don't believe that for a minute.

But what I will hold Britney responsible for is her complete lack of energy throughout the performance. One of the things that I like about her as a performer was her crisp dancing, as well as her ability to make simple motions dramatic. She's also been very good at pushing the envelope during live performances--stripping, large snakes, kissing Madonna--she always was doing something to get her audience's attention. And her performance on Sunday had none of that. She looked lethargic, her movements were sloppy, and her performance was just the same thing she's always done.

For comparison, check out this video from the 2000 VMAs, where she covered the Stones' "Satisfaction" and performed "Oops! I Did It Again." Here, she's full of energy, her dancing is crisp, and she really shocks her audience when she pulls off that suit. I can still remember watching it in my dorm room at college with my friends--all of us were sitting there saying, "Is she seriously doing this?"



Now, we're asking the same question--"Is she seriously doing this?"--but for all of the wrong reasons. Britney, either care about what you're doing, or get off the stage, and let us watch someone who does.

Singing hallelujah with the fear in your heart

I'm a sucker for 80's rock ballads. I didn't listen to them growing up, but my freshman year in college--back when Napster was still...ummm...not legal, but it wouldn't get you arrested--a bunch of us in my dorm downloaded a lot of 80's hits and grew to love them. Among our favorites was Meatloaf; songs like "Hot Summer Night", "Heaven Can Wait", and "Life is a Lemon" appealed to our various moods--hopefulness, joy, romance, angst, and despair. But even more, we loved the music itself, these powerful, soaring melodies that captured the mood of the song and made it almost tangible.

The song "Intervention" from Arcade Fire's latest album Neon Bible has the same effect on me. I love the whole album, but this one song has really grabbed onto me in a way the others haven't. I think a lot has to do with the melody and instrumentation; it works in the same way that Meatloaf does. The song opens with massive organ chords, evocative of the opening of Meatloaf's "Home by Now." There's something about using a pipe organ that conveys a feeling of sacredness and awe to the listener. It's pretty cool.

The brilliance of the song comes when you think about this sacred music in connection to the lyrics. The song tells of people who are trying to work within the established system, desperately trying not to lose hope when their family is faced with hardship and tragedy. Here are some sample lyrics:

You say it's money that we need /As if we're only mouths to feed
Working for the church /While your family dies /You take what they give you /And you keep it inside /Every spark of friendship and love /Will die without a home
Working for the church /While your life falls apart /Singing hallelujah with the fear in your heart
This is what I think makes the song so incredible. While Meatloaf sings about love in its many forms, Arcade Fire sings about those who are struggling to live and celebrates them and what they have to go through. It's not a religious experience exactly, but it's close. Jody Rosen, writing for Slate Magazine, describes Arcade Fire as a combination of U2 and Bruce Springsteen; I think the Springsteen comparison is particularly applicable here. Just like Springsteen was seen as the rock star for blue-collar workers, Arcade Fire sings about those who struggle to get by in a way that doesn't make them victims and doesn't patronize them, but instead, sings in way that shows how their lives are sacred and worth celebrating as individuals.

Now that's a song worth singing.

And they say American music is crap....

The 2007 Eurovision Song Contest took place this weekend, with Serbia winning with their entry--Marija Šerifović singing "Molitva" (see the Video of the Week). I like the song fine. It doesn't really grab me like I would expect the winning song to, but it was nice enough. I think what impressed me the most is how Marija looks--she doesn't have the body or hairstyle of a Britney, for example, but she was still selected as Serbia's representative to the contest.

To be honest, my favorite song in the top 10 was Bulgaria's entry: "Water" performed by Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankoulov. Here's their entry video:



The song, which placed 5th, draws on traditional Bulgarian folklore, while incorporating innovative percussion elements. Even so, it has the strong dance beat and techno tonality (if there is such a thing) that I expect of stereotypical European music. I mean, I wouldn't have been surprised to hear this song playing in the background of a club in Germany in an Alias episode. That doesn't mean it's bad, just that it's slightly predictable.

But the entry that REALLY blows my mind is the entry from the Ukraine. When watching this video, keep in mind that this got SECOND PLACE:



W.T.F. If you check out the lyrics for the song, it makes close to zero sense. Most of the chorus is saying the numbers 7, 1, 2, and 3 in German. Oooh, killer song. And don't even get me started on that guy's outfit. It's like the worst of Cher and Madonna combined.

I'm really not intending to knock European music, but I have to admit that I was surprised when I saw these videos. I hadn't paid attention to the contest in past years, but I expected the best songs from each European country to be much more innovative and, well, better. Perhaps it's because I've always associated Europe with culture, fashion, and the cutting edge of trendiness. I guess it makes me feel kind of smug. Yes, Europeans, you have cooler buildings, an unbelievable wealth of historically significant artists and musicians, better social welfare programs, thinner bodies, better public transportation, better wine, beer, and cheese, and you can all speak multiple languages, but hey--at least the best of our new music doesn't totally blow.

As much as I hate to admit it, it almost makes me want to watch American Idol. At least they don't wear tin foil hats.

Pandora and Arcade Fire

Well, I think I've finally done it! For a while now, I've played around with what to listen to while at the computer. CDs and Mp3s are fine, but I want to hear a variety of music, and also, new music that I wouldn't have listened to on my own. My husband and I have tried Radio Paradise, a free internet radio station, but have found it to be really hit or miss. We love some of the songs, but others make us want to scream.

I've also tried Pandora, and before tonight, I've had relatively little success. Pandora is another internet radio website, but with a twist. You enter music that you like, and it creates a "station" that plays music that is similar to the artist or song that you entered. I liked the concept, and so I started an account (totally free). I entered Bruce Springsteen, but he has such a large range to his sound that just about everything could match. I also tried creating stations off of artists where I only liked/knew 2 or 3 of their songs. This didn't work very well either, because the songs I like weren't really representative of their sound as a whole.

So, I left Pandora alone for a while. Tonight, as I'm putting off grading student presentations, I thought I'd try again. And what do you know? I finally had success! This time, I entered a band--Arcade Fire--where I liked one of their whole CDs, not just 2 or three songs. The other advantage to Arcade Fire is that they are a relatively new band, so they haven't had time to put out the massive amounts of music that someone like Springsteen has. They just have two albums out--Funeral (2004) and Neon Bible (2007). I've found this combination of my wide interest in the group and their relatively limited output to be a really good one that captures the kind of music I'm interested in listening to tonight. Some other groups that I also really like--such as Death Cab for Cutie and Artic Monkey--have also come up on the playlist, which is cool. And what's even better--I've heard some groups that are new to me and that I like, which means that ultimately, Pandora is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Code of Silence

I'm a pretty big fan of Bruce Springsteen, and I've been listening to The Essential Bruce Springsteen recently. This week's quote is from "Dead Man Walkin'" on that album. When I heard the song "Code of Silence," it struck me as something relevant to our current political situation. Even though the song, written in 1997 with Joe Gruschecky, is about the relationship between two people, it can also describe the relationship between the American people and the Bush administration. Here are some of the lyrics:

There's a code of silence that we don't dare speak
There's a wall between us and a river so deep
We keep pretending that there's nothing wrong
But there's a code of silence and it can't go on

Is the truth so elusive, so elusive you see
That it ain't enough baby, to bridge the distance between you and me
There's a list of grievance a 100 miles long
There's a code of silence and it can't go on

Well you walk with your eyes open
But your lips they remain sealed
While the vows we made are broken
Beneath the truth you need to reveal
Well I came to know now darlin'
Need to know what's going on
But come on, come on, come on, come on
Come on, come on, come on

Now you walk with your eyes open
But your lips they remain sealed
While the vows we made are broken
Beneath the truth we fear to reveal
I need to know now darlin'
Need to know what's going on
So come on, come on, come on, come on


Much of what Springsteen sings about--broken vows, lists of grievances, code of silence, truth that needs to be revealed--can easily be read as commentary on the war in Iraq. In fact, his song is almost a musical version of the recent Chicago Tribune op-ed piece by Geoffrey R. Stone and William P. Marshall entitled "Secrecy, the Enemy of Democracy," which puts a charge on the American people not to blindly trust their president, but to insist on transparency in public policy. One of the most provocative lines for me in this essay reads, "Secrecy is the ultimate form of censorship because the people do not even know they are being censored." Knowledge is power, and in order to assert our power as citizens, we need to be informed about the president's policies and speak up. No more hiding behind the flag or the ideal of patriotism as the reason to blindly follow the president into Iraq.

The thing is, though--and I think this might scare me more than ever--the people have spoken, and Bush simply isn't paying any attention. Recent polls show over 60% of Americans opposing the war in Iraq, with some polls even showing that 70% of American people oppose sending more troops to Iraq. And then President Bush goes and announces his "surge." What is he thinking? He is so far out of touch with what the country wants; in fact, his recent plan forIraq has been met with condemnation from both sides of Congress. Bush is apparently stunned that his plan hasn't been met with approval.

It seems that this line from Springsteen's song is particularly applicable in this case:

Is the truth so elusive, so elusive you see
That it ain't enough baby, to bridge the distance between you and me.

The truth--be it the dismal military situation in Iraq, the lack of weapons of mass destruction, or even the people's opinion--isn't enough to change Bush's mind about Iraq, because he has his own personal agenda to accomplish there. We need leaders who will put the truth and the needs of their constituents first, rather than basing important public policies on what they, and they alone, think is right. As we gear up for the 2008 presidential elections, let's work to support candidates who promote transparency in governmental policies, rather than those who espouse secrecy and a "code of silence."