This is an online music fan zine. Please support music and musicians by going to shows, purchasing CDs, buying a damn T-shirt!
All mp3s are posted here with permission from the artists/labels/PR folks, and for a very brief time. If you have any issues with content on this zine please email me; atartytart@gmail.com I'm addicted to my Iphone, darlins'... I'll get back to you.
If you like what's up here, it'd be nice to know about it, so leave me some comments, eh? You can always post me love notes and CDs and such at: Love Shack, Baby, PO Box 221235 Chicago, IL 60622 (note new addy)
Tart on Twitter
And you can find PuppetShow at enjoy.the.puppet.show@gmail.com
Well, it’s been a real Celebrity Death Match lately, huh? People will not shut up about Michael Jackson. I’ve waited until today throw my rant at you; I’ve been too angry to write clearly. In all the smoke of hero-worship we easily lose sight of the real legacy of MJ. Of course MJ is both person and superstar. Frankly, I can’t stomach the personal discussion of him. Let that be argued by people more calm and rational than me. I know my limitations. Superstardom however, is just as important for us to understand. After all, we who read these pages are the folks who buy music, obsess over music, and in the end, who are directly influenced by how the industry changes. And in that respect, MJ was certainly a “titan” (a phrase used over at Matthew’s blog, here).
In 1991, Rolling Stone magazine reported that MJ and his sister Janet had landed the best, most lucrative record deals in history: deals that redefined superstar contracts in the entertainment industry. “Both Jacksons will receive perks that other recording artists, from Madonna to U2, can only dream about.” MJ became a 50/50 financial partner with Sony, with a deal that would “split the profits of his future albums — in addition to receiving artist, publishing and songwriting royalties.” How was this possible in an industry that was basically (and still is) dying due to the availability of online music? Why reward an artist with even more of your profits when your company is struggling to compete? We can see Michael Jackson as the last rope thrown out to a sinking boatload of music industry insiders. Product, meet market.
Superstars pretty much get what they want. They do this by using their identities and future appearances (physical as well as virtual) to leverage for their income. Michael Jackson was not just an entertainer, or a “humanitarian,” or a recording artist. He was a package deal. Time magazine reported in 1984 that “A good friend is right when he suggests that, ultimately, “Michael’s appeal is universal less because of his music than because of who he is.” He set out to make himself into the most expensive commodity that could be bought and sold and traded of his time. After Off The Wall was not as lucrative or recognized as he hoped, he told his lawyer, John Branca, that he wanted to be “the biggest star in show business, and the wealthiest.” To do this he needed to carefully construct an image, one that was fused with his recordings, the Pop Star. This image was what we all paid for when we bought his albums; when we paid for cable TV to see his video on MTV; when we purchased all those supermarket tabloids.
His contract with Sony allowed him to be:
paid on every album sold; most artists are paid on only eighty-five percent of the records sold. … If his next album sells 10 million copies, Jackson could earn — from profit sharing and artist, songwriting and publishing royalties — a record $2.80 per unit sold, or $28 million. And if sales reach 20 million to 25 million, he would receive more than $3 a unit, or between $60 million and $75 million. By contrast, it’s estimated that Madonna receives less than $2 a unit. … As several industry insiders note, what Jackson has done is bet on himself – bet that he will have many more multiplatinum albums and thus earn hundreds of millions of dollars based on his share of the revenue. Rolling Stone (May 2 1991) p. 15-16.
He knew he could take this gamble by 1991 because of his past ability to be exactly what we wanted. Is that wrong of him? Perhaps not, if he had proved to us that he had unparalleled musical talent.
But remember, he’s a superstar. “So now it’s not just about music or even the number of records or concert tickets you can sell, but fame, and who has the highest profile to offer and an international media giant struggling to put a human face on its operations.” (Dancing in the Distraction Factory by Andrew Goodwin, 1992) Talent is only a small part of the package. Superstars base their success on their image, not on their ability to write music (which he had little to none – his songs were written by others, or, at best, melodies were sung into a tape by him to be made into a song by others), to play an instrument (he did not), to sing like no other (Smokey Robinson was a mentor for a reason, no?). One thing Michael could do was dance. Well, he also dressed pretty snappy, had a habit of doing something morally shocking just after an album was released, and generally provide enough antics to keep the press talking about him. That is the role of superstar, is it not?
Every time we laid eyes or ears on MJ we had to pay for it. Don’t fool yourself that it was only the big labels who doled out the money. That was our money. We bought the concert tickets:
On his worldwide Dangerous tour, megastar Michael Jackson performed before 70,000 fans at National Stadium in Bucharest, Romania. Jackson’s historic concert, which nearly overshadowed the country’s general election, was mounted with a security force of some 20,000 police officers. The $16 ticket price, which was lower than the price charged in other countries, amounted to a quarter of the average monthly salary for city residents. Jet v. 82 (October 19 1992) p. 62
We bought the clothing (gloves, jackets, jeans, t-shirts, you name it – it existed), and the Pepsi endorsed by the King of Pop. MJ was labeled as “A one-man rescue team for the music business.” (Time, March 19,1984). Don King said of the Jackson’s tour of 1985, “if the boys decide to exploit every avenue of merchandising and marketing available to them—T shirts, pay-per-view TV concerts, clothing lines, perfume lines, product identification—the tour could gross $100 million.”
We paid to watch the Superbowl and bought VCRs just for him:
Michael Jackson’s legacy will forever include this title: King of Pigskin. His three-song medley at halftime of Dallas’s 52-17 trouncing of Buffalo in 1993 signified a tectonic shift for the N.F.L. For years, the league had packed its halftimes with a roster of the unhip… New York Times 6/30/2009, p10
Public fascination with his videos was so great that people rushed out to buy VCRs to play the tightly choreographed, 13-minute video and hour-long documentary, “The Making of Michael Jackson’s Thriller.” USA Today 06/30/2009
When the smart negotiator made a deal with Sony, in 1995 to merge the Beatles’ catalog and hundreds of other songs he had bought copyright to with Sony’s catalog he stood to make a net profit of $95 million. But it had far more dire consequences for the music industry. Jackson said in a press statement: “The merging of ATV with Sony establishes our commitment to create one of the largest music publishing ventures in the world. We have been working on this for over a year and, now, with the two of us together, the sky is our only limit.”" Jet. Chicago: Nov 27, 1995. Vol. 89, Iss. 3; pg. 36
That is the music industry conglomerate that indie labels and artists have fought against in order to have a say in their careers and to be able to produce a wider variety of musical genres; to include queers and women, and people of all races in who to makes our music. That is the monster that looks out for its copyright to such an extent that the RIAA is willing to take individual fans to court and attempt to extract from them hundreds of thousands of dollars, in order to prove their point; the point being, this is MINE. Note that these individuals report no profit made on their illegal downloads in most cases. “Michael P. Schulhof, president and CEO, Sony Corporation of America, said: “Michael Jackson is not only the most successful entertainer in history; he is also an astute businessman. Michael understands the importance of copyrights and the role they play in the introduction of new technologies. In joining us for this new venture, Michael recognizes Sony’s leadership in developing and realizing new technologies that serve to expand the creative horizons of artists such as himself.”" Jet. Chicago: Nov 27, 1995. Vol. 89, Iss. 3; pg. 36
It’s just unfortunate that the copyright laws also protected the rights of other musicians against MJ. But superstars don’t really have to play by the rules do they?
Superstar Michael Jackson’s lawyer, Bertram Fields, has denied copyright infringement charges brought against Jackson by the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra. The orchestra alleges that Jackson used a choral snippet from its recording of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 at the beginning of the song “Will You Be There” on his Dangerous album and that it received no credit or compensation. The orchestra, which is seeking at least $7 million from Jackson, Epic Records, and Epic’s parent company, Sony Music Entertainment, recorded the symphony for Columbia Records, which is now also owned by Sony.
The lawyer’s explanation included him saying that he believed the use of the recording was “permitted” and that Sony had known “what Jackson was doing and didn’t object” Jet v. 82 (May 11 1992) p. 60
What are we left with at the end of the day to explain the impact of Michael Jackson on the music industry? We’re left with stronger concentration of power in the major labels; raised stakes for artists who are negotiating contracts; a fine example of how to market yourself as a total package; and a very strong idea that he with the most money gets to make the rules. That is his legacy folks, get over it. Spoiled Brats of the Ruling Class.
Michael Jackson was no musician to emulate. He rarely paid homage to those who had gone before him in the struggle to integrate Blacks into the White majority cultural stronghold. What about Aretha Franklin, Louis Armstrong, Sam Cooke, Dianna Ross?, “Jackson was not the first” as Paul Kahn, Newtonville, Mass., wrote in his letter to the editor, USA Today 06/30/2009. MJ did not even begin to approach the musical genius of Prince (as I and others will school you on, if you’re so inclined… maybe even if you’re not), not even close to Sly And The Family Stone, Everybody is a Star, or James Brown. But MJ did make himself a superstar. Do we need more of those? I think not.
Many of my blogging friends are outraged and depressed over the passage of anti-gay marriage amendments in Arizona, California and Florida this past Tuesday. The simple fact is that in some of those states the very same people who voted in Obama voted out the rights of gays to marry and it’s making folks more than a little upset. Here at chez Tart, we remain unfazed. Why?
Marriage sucks. Marriage should be outlawed. Nobody should be married. Marriage is for neanderthals and pricks (no not the kind I like, ok?). The only reasons semi-right-minded people get married these days are:
for health insurance rights (an insult to our inherent rights as a human being to health and happiness)
to please our families (an insult to our independence and sense of self in the face of a worn out tradition that smacks of heterosexism and oppression)
to get a boatload of gifts that you could get anyway at a big ole party
in some states, (now Arkansas, as of Tuesday) to adopt children, yes for you straight people now too
to declare a legal relationship in order to inherit an estate at a reduced tax rate (that rate is currently zero)
Yeah, that’s my opinion. It’s insulting to some of you, I’m sure. And indeed MeatPocket M.Chutney, my lovely “wife” and I got “married” in that we stood up before a hundred or so of our friends and family and declared our unlawful love for one another 15 years ago. It wasn’t legal then, it isn’t legal now. It was SYMBOLIC folks, we had a blast doing it.
Marriage was created as a legal contract between two parties to establish lineage in order to retain property rights. Period. It is not a spiritual union, it never has been. All that churchy stuff was tacked on to make it seem like a nice community oriented matter in order to sell it to the public and mask its true commercial nature and to provide for yet another opportunity of collective effervescence (aka. a party with drunkenness and general good feeling to bond us together). As capitalism grew as a dominant force in world power, the marriage contract grew in importance — wealth accumulated and we needed to know who would inherit it! But with all the fun we were having at weddings and baby christenings and bachelor parties (not in that order, obviously1) we didn’t have our minds on the accumulation and protection of wealth, did we?
In the 20th century, with the advent of a multicultural and postmodern society, (which values tolerance and inclusiveness), stretching the definition of marriage and allowing other types of couples to enter into that contract should be seen as simply a business arrangement transacted for the benefit of the economic forces at hand. Logically, there is no reason to prohibit two men or two women from entering into this type of contract for their common welfare and the welfare of their children. Just as 40 years ago there was no logical reason for prohibiting two people of different races (at that time African-American and white) to be married. However, those old religious trappings have a lasting impact. People have become wed to the mask and have forgotten the original meaning of marriage. That is what capitalism seeks to do, and what it does so well. That is the essence of its success. It takes what is mechanical, inhuman, and purely market-oriented, and masks that with something that thinks, feels, and acts in a way to react to the lived experience of capitalism itself. In other words, it takes a market transaction and makes it feel like a human experience. When any disruption in forces is sought out or naturally comes about to change the workings of capital intentions (the smooth operations of mechanistic contracts) then conflict arises – emotional flareups occur. Read more after the tunes, it’s long, sorry.
Nina SimoneBe My Husband Let It Be Me (such a sad song, surely no recommendation for marriage!)
Nina SimoneMarriage is For Old Folks I Put A Spell On You (here, she really tells it like it is)
Billy BraggThe MarriageTalking With The Taxman About Poetry (well, he did it anyway, alas!)
The ReplacementsYou’re Getting MarriedStink (the song NOT to give someone about to get married)
Amy Ray and The VolunteersLet It RingLive From Knoxville (gotta have one protest song or I lose my membership in Dykes Anonymous!)
Ben Folds plays tonight, we shall see him for the first time. Review soon after will appear in this space. In the meantime, this song has been rattling about in my head for about two days now and finally Puppet Show helped me figure out enough of the words (yeah all it took was Da, Da, Da) to remember the name of the band. And a post over on Song, by Toad got my ass in gear to post it, so go blame him! But stop and buy the album, Trio & Error first.
Now don’t judge them until you know more. They’re not as stupid as they appear at first glance. Remember time and place, folks. As Wiki tells us, history matters.
It was a product of the Neue Deutsche Welle (or NDW). However, Trio preferred the name Neue Deutsche Fröhlichkeit, which means “New German Cheerfulness”, to describe their music. At that time, as now, popular songs were based on extremely simple structures that were ornately produced. Trio’s main principle was to remove almost all the ornamentation and polish from their songs, and to use the simplest practical structures (most of their songs were three-chord songs). For this reason, many of their songs are restricted to drums, guitar, vocals, and just one or maybe two other instruments, if any at all.
I give you Trio.
Da Da Da (no, it’s better than the bit they put in that VW commercial)
One of my favorite words, “trajectory,” … I love tracing the sometimes non-linear, evolving nature of a thing, be it peoples’ biographies, cultural entities like organizations or groups, or simply the sound of a band from one era to another. My latest assignment in the Tart’s musical education, Joy Division and New Order. So, you can see why I’m thinking of trajectories right now. Plus, the concept of a trajectory is much more pleasing than that of a descendant or of a derivative which can be very judgmental. Trajectory just implies that something shot off in a direction, not naming the direction or even the force or extent of it’s range. Keep that in mind here.
I hadn’t listened to New Order’sSubstance probably since it first came out. The popular tracks were all the rage at parties and in clubs. To be honest, I never knew who the artists were behind “Bizarre Love Triange,” “Shame of The Nation,” and “Blue Monday.” We just danced our asses of to them.
Now, as I listen to Joy Division for the first time, without even knowing the connection between it and New Order, I’m tempted to just turn it off. I can’t get through it, I skip ahead in the songs, hoping for something bright. It’s not there. My ears hear The Doors all over it. (Oh god, don’t fling dead things at me, it’s what i hear, ok?!) Without belaboring the point, I’ll just throw out my observations to you dogs and see what happens (sorry Pup, I’m desecrating JD with Morrison as we discussed!).
Obviously vocally, Ian Curtis in the later years of Joy Division took on a very similar baritone drone.
Imagine the organ in The Doors music as two separated components, the upper register covered by the the guitar bits of Joy Division (and the synthesizer, obviously), the lower tones covered by Peter Hook’s bass. So that you have a layering in Joy Division’s sound over the more simplistic and yet “messy” sound of The Doors.The roots are still exposed however. I totally agree with Puppet Show; The Doors meander while Joy Division is clean and boxy and tight, as any post-punk band should be. But the skeletons of so many tracks are so aligned with each other.
Ian Curtis’ tragic death and that of Jim Morrison while of course not connected linearly do have a kind of cosmic loose affiliation, no?
Honestly, not having heard Joy Division before, I would place “Colony” as a derivative track, directly in the musical trajectory of The Doors, updated for a 1980s sound. Yes, I’m being judgmental in the case of “Colony.” It’s too close for my comfort level.
But the real question of the day is how did we get from a song like “Colony” or “Means To An End” to the real pop-flavored stuff on Substance? Obviously there is a huge amount of carry-over, but the change is shockingly abrupt. Or is it just the context I heard it in initially? These are questions a blogger has to ask, our interpretation of music is so very much influenced by our past, is it not?
Call me crazy if you will, but as a new listener to this it’s all I got for you today!
True FaithNew OrderSubstance Blue MondayNew OrderSubstance
Hey buy all of these great songs, just follow the links!
Yeah, no mp3s for you either, apologies. I’m trying to keep as much RIAA stuff off of this blog as possible. Let me know if the allmusic links work for you, hopefully you can play the songs there, xoxox
So, I often run to Wikipedia to help me figure out my music quandaries. What genre should I put My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult in or The B 52s, and is Sting still New Wave if he’s no longer with The Police? Yeah most people just follow fucktunes and don’t care if Apple determines how their music is organized, but I like to do it myself and I like to know why certain artists fall into genres and sub genres. Perhaps it’s because I’m obsessed with history in general, perhaps it’s because I like to connect the dots so that when I hear GLU I can go back and listen to Depeche Mode and figure out what they borrowed and where they put it. And it’s important to me that even if the sound quality is kinda crappy and the style may sound a bit dated, the music of a band like God Lives Underwater is amazing because it was created in a specific time and place, and that time and place is NOT 2008 with the computer technology that recording artists today enjoy. So, listen to this track and remember it was created sometime between 1999-2001 (?) but not released until 2004.
See it’s difficult to know exactly when this album was recorded. And honestly I don’t feel like wading through fan forums to find out. All I can tell from either Wiki or the official band site is that the release was delayed as the label went broke, but delayed for how long? And then David Reilly died in 2005 and well…. it all gets murky.
this first one is for bitterandrew who’s giving really bad (ok, andrew, omit the adjective!) love advice over on Armagideon Time tonight, lol! This song just sprung to mind.
God Lives Underwater: from Up Off The Floor, Tricked mp3