<quote>

""Once the uber-beautiful Marié Digby is revealed to be just another young music wannabe, no different from any other major label priority, suddenly, there’s nothing of interest left," wrote Bob."

</quote>

I can understand how he feels. I lost the will to live after I found out Jessica Alba has no idea I exist.

I agree that pretending to be unsigned is a big no no for the bloggers but she still has a wonderful voice and nothing can change that..

...he needs to get a hat andd coat so he can get out more.

This whining sounds all too familiar. It was heard years ago when the hippie wave broke against the beaches of harsh reality and the me generation boogied their innocent little behinds into the discos.

It must be hard coming down from that authentic prozac placebo the bloggers bought from that genuinely fake pharmasy with a very real card account.

You I can sympathize with - indeed, I have been through exactly the same nerve-wracking, unending pain as you since our dear Ms Alba doesn't know I exist either.

But Bobby just needs a length of rope. I happen to have some handy . . .

Like many here I'm absolutely shocked and appalled to find this kind of lying going on on my internet.

I think I may have to leave forever, who's with me?

... to keep it authentic it has be secret, then the artist isn't a success, doesn't make enough money from their art to live, dies in penury and squalor, then is 'discovered' and made legitimately famous after death! Brilliant!

What a twat.

Music industry in ruthless marketing shocker.

If I read the article correctly (I've only done it once and certainly aren't going to bother doing so again) she may have been signed, but they can't of been doing much with her, what with it taking ages for her to be recognised.

""You could say I’ve lost my faith in corporations," he added."

Surely this implies that he once had "faith" in corporations. What kind of faith can any right-minded individual have in an organisation which is *legally mandated* to be completely amoral in the pursuit of profit.

Well, I suppose you can have faith that they'll do anything they can get away with to make money - something a writer for the WSJ should probably know.

"It's a fascinating example of how people consider "authenticity" in music to be important, and what they consider "authenticity" to be."

well, if they had to accept that it is a total and utter bullshit concept, the self appointed arbiters of cool might actually have to start *listening* to music. oh noes!!

is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Z6tDSb6c8

......then there's Marketing.........

The Sex Pistols were manufactured properly. Will Young (who?) was not. Authenticity does matter. This is more complex than you are making out. You don't have to stay poor to be authentic, you just have to present yourself honestly, even if you are presenting a fantasy. Confused? That's art.

The Pistols manufactured the Pistols, they just didn't count on finding a genius for a manager?

That kind of CSS abuse is a far greater danger to the web than Disney deceptions.

"I NEVER in a million years thought that doing my little video of Umbrella in my living room would lead to this . tv shows, itunes, etc !!!"

It's part of the whole business of selling a dream; the dream that anybody can jump up on the stage and perform, and that pop stars are just the same as us. But it's not true. They are not the same as us, they are fundamentally superior. They look better, sing better, and smell better. Their genes are more spreadable. That is why we worship them and not vice-versa. They also have personal contacts in the music business. This lady with her silly French accent is trying to make us feel good about our inadequacies, by masquerading as an ordinary person, and I admire that. I remember when I discovered the truth about Radio Massacre International; my faith in the purity of music was transformed.

I suppose the next amateur internet star to be busted will be Belle du Jour, who I believe has a film coming out.

I just had to comment on this story, as I'm shocked and appalled that someone could lie on the internet! The internet is supposed to be a place of truth, not somewhere where people lie and pretend to be things they're not!!!!

I am literally weeping onto piles of genuine Chinese Herbal Viagra and my vision is too blurred to read the latest email, concerning the imminent arrival of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, from my Nigerian friend Dr MBoto NBego.

Ah well, I'll just console myself by MSNing the feisty 18 year girl from the US I'm going to meet for sex, then take back to the UK, in a few months time.

To be fair to Lefsetz, you are misrepresenting his argument in order to sustain yours. He says that the story around Digby - the thing that gets her slots on prime time chat shows - is that she was discovered on YouTube. Once that is exposed, she is just another pretty girl with a nice voice that a major label is trying to promote. So there is "nothing left" of Disney's marketing strategy for that artist, and all your nonsense about the American dream doesn't come into it.

a corporation backed artist on YouTube and noone mentioned

suing Google / YouTube for copyright infringement ?

What is this world coming to ?

:D

...APPLE USERS lying about OS X having no viruses when EVERYONE knows it would have MORE VIRUSES than WINDOWS if it were HALF as POPULAR!!1! And STEVE is the WORST LIAR for selling the iPHONEY for $600 when it's ONLY worth $200 and then DROPPING the price without warning. You iLEMMINGS DESERVE IT!!1!

MAN I'M SO ANGRY!!1!

Well that was an interesting 3 minutes... "I dream in triangles" brilliant.

Anyway... I think this might be of help to the YouTubers: http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/waaaambulance-23284.jpg

I always thought that music was for entertainment and enjoyment. There is a big difference between Milli Vanilli where they didn't actually sing on their record, to someone with genuine talent who happens to be expoliting [puke] "new media" [/puke] to get noticed and sell records.

If you like the msuic then buy it, if you don't, don't. Sorry but I don't find myself thinking.. oooh I like this song, but the singer is ugly so I won't listen to it anymore.

Most large record companies are a bunch of backstabbing, screwball knob ends - however, the artists are just trying to make a living in an industry filled with twats and I'll still buy the music, even if I don't like the record company.

Except of course if they insist on DRM or some such crap, then I'll happily get my music DRM-free through other channels...

"Once the uber-beautiful Marié Digby is revealed to be just another young music wannabe"

So what does that make the other hopefuls on YT? At least this one can sing...

Bernie Rhodes didn't take the 101ers and change them into The Clash.

I think Bernie saw the 101ers and had Mick and Paul ask Joe Strummer to leave the 101ers and join them in a new band. Joe Strummer was the only member of the 101ers to leave and join Mick and Paul to form The Clash.

Bernie Rhodes didn't come up with the slogans or the clobber, a lot of that was Paul having been to art school, and Joes interest in socialist causes from his folky days.

i was wondering when our friend Webster was going to crawl back out from under the stone. angry about what? are you saying that you actually bought one of the iPhone that you've spent the last 2 months condeming and complaining about?

or are you angry that The Reg has so far managed to not post an article on how Apple have already achieved their first milestone of selling one million iPhones, so you have to find other topics to post your off-topic meaningless rants in?

My view that the online video is a waste of time. If it's a song, I want to listen to it, not watch it. If it's a game trailer, it won't have real game footage anyway. If it's an interview, I can read the transcript in a tiny fraction of the time. And so on.

I think what the article failed to communicate is that these bloggers are outraged and that they are, for the first time unable to clearly communicate their emotions.

Sure, a blogger has a strong sense of ego, and when they create some "self importance" it hurts to be proven wrong and brought back to reality.

But that doesn't mean that they are wrong in their emotions about this girl singer.

I believe that they are outraged that Disney/Hollywood Records, is using these bloggers and YouTube to attempt to start a grassroots marketing campaign for a new and relatively unknown singer.

That is, Disney tossed this girl out like bait, and let these "blogger manics" run with the story.

I guess it never feels nice to be used.

You're telling me the stuff I see on the internet isn't real. No way! I know for a fact that Malcolm McLaren is really a Covenant Elite Warrior because I SAW him on "This Spartan Life, Episode 3" ...so THERE!!!

of course the lovely Jessica Alba doesn't know who you weirdos are! get real!!

but she knows who i am, oh yes, we're getting married, yes we are, just as soon as i get that restraining order revoked

Scientists have discovered that people may have hundreds of friends on Facebook and Myspace, but most of them aren't all that close.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070911/tuk-lifestyle-britain-internet-a7ad41d_1.html

There's real ground breaking stories out there, what are you doing???

I'm just off for tea with Eric Clapton.

"i was wondering when our friend Webster was going to crawl back out from under the stone. angry about what?"

To be fair, and in the context of the discussion, Webster's outburst was probably intended as self-parody - it was pretty funny, and seemed intentionally so. There's a thin line between obsession and in-joke.

"There is a big difference between Milli Vanilli where they didn't actually sing on their record, to someone with genuine talent who happens to be expoliting [puke] "new media" [/puke] to get noticed and sell records."

Is the difference really that big?

Marié Digby is pretending to be 'herself', singing other peoples songs.

Milli Vanilli was someone else, pretending to sing their own songs.

It's called deception, every which way you look at it.

The biggest diffence is in the media used: Music videos vs. ... ahem ... music videos (online). Not much of a difference, really.

Big Media _still_ uses deception to boost marketing? Colour me shocked! I bet it'll never happen again!

"Once the uber-beautiful Marié Digby is revealed to be just another young music wannabe, no different from any other major label priority, suddenly, there’s nothing of interest left," wrote Bob.

Yup, Bob, someone else got her cherry. Now you can cry all the way to the bank.

Oh deary me, he's lost a reason for living just because some tart isn't the amature superstar he thought it was. Sad git or what? I could make several snide remarks about the type of people who become obcessed about these fads, but whats the point. So what if she's signed up with Disney, who realy gives a rats testicle?

If she's 18, has nice tits,and wears less clothing than a beach model, then musical talent is realy just a bonus (C'mon, music video's have amply proven this point time and time again). It's the whole reason we have a 'mute' button on televisions, and on Youtube. These guys (and i'll bet there 90% male bloggers) who complained are obviously focusing on the wrong thing (clevage).

There has been a fair amount in the music press over the last 12-18 months or so about this kind of thing, so I wouldn't call this marketing plot exactly new - although the outrage from fans is rather more extreme than previously.

If you look at all the early coverage about Lily Allen there was a lot about her gaining a following via MySpace, but not so much that she had been signed up to her label yonks before that - or that her MySpace page was designed as a key part of the marketing campaign behind her.

Funnily enough, the first major mainstream push/hype in the UK about MySpace (prop. R Murdoch) was the coverage about the Artic Monkeys rise to fame, which appeared again and again by The Times (prop. R. Murdoch).

"Re: Bootnote The late Tony Wilson once explained the Pistols to me like this: "They were manufactured ... but Malcolm McLaren hadn't counted on Johnny Rotten being a genius." Nicely put."

Nicely put, but not actually true - unless you consider jettisoning the orginal singer, Wally Nightingale (who formed the band) and replacing him with Lydon (all done with consultation with other band members), akin to maufacturing a group - and given your comment about the Pistols being 'synthetic', I'll make the reasonable assumption that you do.

Don't give up the day job to write about music... then again, seeing what you do as a day job....

I'm afraid I've lost Bob's will to live! And Webster Phreaky's too. Pascal, can I please borrow your rope? I'll return it in a few hours...

Passé.

Perhaps some polite intelligence?

The 'lack of will to live' comment is extrapolated from a slightly out-of-context comment, folks. The guy isn't actually saying there's nothing interesting left in the world, he's saying there's no longer anything interesting about the MUSICIAN. According to Bob, a large part of her appeal was that she was new and virtually undiscovered, making her supposed discovery on Youtube something everyone could watch and applaud. But how do you observe and cheer on someone's discovery when they're already discovered?

Jeez... Where's my clue-by-four when I need it?

The record labels have proven to me that I can live without any musicians other than the ones I know personally - pub bands, street buskers, and the semi-annual visit to the Symphony.

There's absolutely nothing being recorded by RIAA members today that's worth spending my time. And since I don't want their crap - not even for free - I don't have to worry about a frivolous law suit, designed to ruin me financially as punishment for "stealing" their trash.

Remember: If it's not a live performance, it's not an amateur - it's a product.

I once crossed the Atlantic with BA and had Mr Rotten as a fellow passenger.

He was travelling with his Mum and apart from the strange gear and contrived foul language, he seemed quite a nice chap when out of the public eye.

The big question: did her label pay the mechanicals due for her cover versions? Wouldn't it be tragic if those videos -- which were adverts after all, just like any you'd see on the telly -- were the subject of a law suit totalling more than any gains she made in the business...?

1. People are 'economical with the actualite' on the internet

2. People are less than truthful when advancing their careers

3. The record industry is exploiting peoples' gullibility to sell product

4. A precious flower gets a fit of the vapours upon discovering above deceptions

5. Said precious flower says things that make him sound like a simpleton

Where, in all of this, was anything new or newsworthy? Oh yes, sorry. The article mentioned YouTube. Pretty sad, El Reg. Another slow day?

They don't sell music anymore, they sell pop musicians. Disney in particular is a veritable pop-star-puppy-mill. Of course, when I say 'anymore' I mean since the birth of the recording industry.

I don't know if there is necessarily anything wrong with that though. Why doesn't a Bob Dylan cover have the same impact as the original even when it's sung by someone with a better voice?

What people want is character. I don't think it has anything to do with the 'American Dream' though that might sometimes be a part of a singer's character. The trouble is that sometimes people take it too seriously, they want the character to be real.

Knowing this, the music industry goes to great lengths to paint them as the genuine article. Vanilla Ice was from the ghetto, Milli Vanilli could sing and Puff Daddy spends his free time shooting it out with thugs. Now, Marie Digby is just another nobody like you on the net.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - You know who.

"Remember: If it's not a live performance, it's not an amateur - it's a product."

</thread>

I and my wife are both trained musicians and we were taught essentially how to manipulate audiences using lots of specialized tricks of dramaturgy, form, rhythm, phrasing, articulation, harmony, melody, etc.

In our culture music is very much a craft and anyone who imagines that it is or ought to be simply a spontaneous expression of authentic identity, emotion, attitude, etc. is not paying attention.

Outside music itself in popular culture I think an unnecessary amount of attention is paid by listeners to artist biographies, packaging, and other things that have only a tangential relationship to music performance itself--usually in the service of some unarticulated identity-politics agenda. As a result artists are learning how to manipulate audiences by constructing artificial artist bios and other "non-musical" aspects of their work.

I'm not sure it makes sense for audiences to draw a line in the sand and demand authenticity for these aspects of artists' work when they for the most part can't tell the difference between spontaneous and rehearsed aspects of musical performance itself. At some point audiences have to admit that music works for them precisely because it's made to order for them by skilled craftspeople, who deserve to be recognized for their skill and willingness to work.

How old is this guy. 12?

while I'm sure this particular storm will blow over without any damage, the point is that you shouldn't lie. What if someone got a job writing for another publication because they put on their CV that they wrote for the Register when they had not, but they were still talented? I'm sure you'd be annoyed by the deception and would look at their work differently after you found out.

Who the hell are you guys talking about anyway? Never heard of this girl... Until this article. So, there, your fault.

Perhaps what "authenticity" means in this context is someone NOT associated with the RIAA cartels. People are resentful of this because they see it as the Evil Empire sneaking into their sacred independent territory. Genuinely independent artists usually encourage torrenting and downloading of their works and people can spread and share these without fear of the RIAA gestapo coming down on them, and people in this scene value this freedom and absence of fear. But with the major labels worming into the scene, masquerading as "independents", there comes the fear that those filesharing this work will be persecuted for copyright violation.

So what those demanding "authenticity" are really saying is "we don't want you oppressive bastards messing up our indie filesharing scene. You victimised us for copying your crap, now don't come into our arena with it and start suing us here as well!"

The other peril for indies here is that the major labels will flood the indie market with professional productions, taking all the popular top promo spots on YouTube and thus crowding out the genuine indies. We've all seen this happen in other arenas and it's obvious this is going to happen on YouTube as well.

To combat this, a video site for independents ONLY needs to be set up, with the site requiring people to agree to a clickthrough license with these provisions:

1. You testify, on penalty of infringement proceedings, that you are the SOLE creator and copyright owner of this work.

2. You unconditionally license this work for free noncommercial distribution via P2P.

3. You testify, on penalty of fraud and false pretences, that you are NOT signed to a major record label.

If the site owners then have the legal guns to sue the pants off any record label that posts a signed artist in violation of this license, we would have a site that effectively excludes the corporate bullyboys from poisoning the indie scene with manufactured artists. Such a site, given the widespread hatred of multinational corporations prevalent today, would have the potential to get bigger than YouTube very quickly.

I think you're taking what I've said a bit out of context.

You said that she made these vids on her own and posted them.

While possible, are you *sure* that it wasn't done without any "encouragement" from her handlers?

The answer doesn't matter. Its the perception.

Do *I* think that she and her handlers were wrong in trying to foster a "grass roots" marketing campaign? No, but then again, I don't care.

The point I was trying to make was that the "bloggers" took the bait and were used to start that grass roots buzz.

From their perspective, what happened wasn't organic, it was artificial. Several of the other posts also point out that "Pop Music" is all a gimmic.

BTW I was trying to be polite when I talked about bloggers being at a loss for words. Unlike El Reg reporters. :-0 :-P

Quote:

Bootnote The late Tony Wilson once explained the Pistols to me like this: "They were manufactured ... but Malcolm McLaren hadn't counted on Johnny Rotten being a genius." Nicely put.

Unquote

Substitute Beatles for Pistols, George Martin for Malcolm McLaren, and John Lennon for Johnny Rotten.

Does anyone remember the backlash against Blaggers ITA when they got signed by EMI? This was back in the early 1990s, before YouTube, the weblog, or even the web. Their grass-rootsy, anti-establishment fans were outraged, and cries of "sell out" came from every quarter. There were articles and rants in the radical mags and photocopied festival ‘zines denouncing them. There was even a leaflet, distributed at all the festivals, condemning them for their betrayal, and warning other unsigned bands not to follow their example.

As for the Sex Pistols, Malcolm McLaren’s secret master plan (as described in “The Great Rock and Roll Swindle”) was to use notoriety and outrage to bypass all the hard work and expense usually involved with tapping into a paying audience. They wouldn’t have to advertise or promote the band, as Mary Whitehouse and the scandalised popular press would do that for them. They wouldn't have to play many gigs, as most of the promoters that booked them would get cold feet and have to pay huge penalties in order to back out of the (standard) performance contacts. They wouldn't have to record many albums because the record companies that signed them would get cold feet and have to pay through the nose to back out of their recording contracts. Then, when the bookings stopped coming and no record company would touch them, McLaren would take the money and run. To this end, he did everything he could to provoke public relations disasters, even retaining a team of secretaries to write outraged letters to the press. But he reckoned without his band and their army of fans. He actually got frustrated, as time went on, at the failure of the whole enterprise to crash and burn, allowing him to drop the whole thing make his exit.

[Is the difference really that big?

Marié Digby is pretending to be 'herself', singing other peoples songs.

Milli Vanilli was someone else, pretending to sing their own songs.

It's called deception, every which way you look at it.]

Well I think it is...

One is deception about status (signed/unsigned amateur/professional) which is bad, but exposing how the same person doing the same thing is viewed completely differently if they are "amateur" than if they were "professional"

The other deception is bigger - not just lying about the status of the actual artists, but also lying about who the artists are.

Both are annoying - people don't mind being lied to, as long as they don't feel they have been made to look stupid in believing the lie..

Either way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance still applies here..

"You could say I’ve lost my faith in corporations."

This is like a six year old falling over whilst running and claiming to hate muscles.

Ok, we'll take back your internet connection, take down your blog, kill your phone signal, take back most of your possessions, stop your electricity, stop your water, don't even think about becomming ill, because you've now got no healthcare and you're banned from every mall and retail chain in the country.

Are you now ready to embrace corporations? Make a decision quickly because come winter, you'll freeze.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=589Mvlz6LWE

She can barely play the guitar!

So the Sex Pistols were synthetic and artifical? Compared to who? the Beatles,U2 and 99% of all the crap playing today.

Did you see them play? What were you like ten probably in 1977?Typical yuppie scum talking about shit they could never understand.