Liz Phair

I've heard some of her music and liked it although I'm really not familiar with most of it. I do know she's hot. However I'm always skeptical of any artist who decides to "change their image". It usually means the record company (not necessarily the artist) isn't happy with the previous records sales numbers and is trying appeal to a larger demographic. In other words, selling out.

So here I go on my "record companies are killing the music industry" speech again. This is just another example. Why can't artists just be real and say "take it or leave it"? Why can't record companies just take a chance on an artist they believe in instead of the flavor of the month? Why do they have to "change the image" of an otherwise good artist?

Sorry, touchy subject with me.

 

People get into the pop music business to be famous. That's just reality.

The songs on her new record are pretty awful. The Times just crushed it, but I think that was mainly because they had their oh-so-artsy feelings hurt that Phair, the poster child for raw, indie rock, changed teams.

Exile was a good record but I just had a really hard time listening to her sing. I just cannot stand her voice. Despite my personal taste when it comes to her voice, that was a very good record.

 

I agree 100% with your first paragraph. The problem is that the music industry is a business and their foremost concern is sales, not art. So if an artist isn't recouping the record company's investment, the company is going to look for ways to increase sales. As well all know, artistic merit has nothing to do with success - some of the most original, creative and well-crafted music never sells a dime. So the easiest solution is to revamp an artist's look and music so that it's similar to something else that's been successful. In the music world, past success is really the only thing that can be used to predict future success. And it's easier to promote an image when you already have an idea of what the audience would be.

If an artist wants to call all the shots, then he/she shouldn't sign with a major label until he/she has already shown a consistent ability to sell albums. A smaller, indie label would allow them to develop their craft and would probably market them properly. Of course, distribution to stores is often a problem in that scenario, but the internet makes it pretty easy to order any album nowadays.

 

I, on the other hand, am a huge Liz Phair fan -- I have all her cds and sometimes I even listen to them in the car just to torment my poor husband.

 

The reason the record industry is such a dominant force is distribution. Many chains simply will not take indie records because the indie's don't have the big money for promotion. In addition, they have no big budget to convince radio stations to air their acts.

The problem, as with many things, is money. An artist really begins to develop when he/she is free to practice their art 24/7. The only way to do that and still eat is to get paid for that art which only happens if you have a good record deal and/or the ability to tour and promote yourself.

It's a catch 22. Selling records on your own or through a small local/regional label is nearly impossible, especially since the last of the major independant labels was swallowed up by the big five back in the late 80's.

Personally, I'm not sure exactly how yet, but I think that the internet will eventually loosen the stranglehold major labels have on music, mainly because the internet is the cheapest form of distribution anyone has ever seen and it is essentially available to everyone. The problem of promotion still remains and it is still a major factor in why bands and artists cannot self-promote on the same scale as big labels, but the internet definitely helps to narrow that gap.

 

The cd was just released today, so I don't have it yet. But the preview songs I heard on the NYTimes site sounded awfully poppy -- so I'm pretty nervous about the whole thing. I'm hoping it'll show up on the Apple Music Store soon so I can get a better listen before I plunk my money down.

As far as her image, she's always been attractive and provocative, so that doesn't bother me. I just don't understand dressing her up like a 16-year-old -- it doesn't fool the kids and it irritates her older fans.

 

Am I the only one who couldn't stand Exile in Guyville? I bought it really hopeing to like it alot. Being a fan of old REM, old 10000 Maniacs, the Smiths, the Reivers, etc... I figured it would be similar. I was really disapointed. I like raw, un-polished stuff (Velvet Underground) but I can barely listen to Exile.

Now, Liz Phair's cover of the Banana Splits song was, IMHO, excellent!

 

While I don't totally disagree with you, artists like Fugazi and Ani DiFranco have shown that independent artists can be financially solvent (in fact, DiFranco has a greater net earning than many big-name major label artists) without major label promotion and payola. And there are musicians like Dave Matthews (shudder) whose success in the indie market convinced the major labels to give them a try.

The common link between these 3 artists is that they toured incessantly and built their own audience rather than allowing a label to fit them into a demographic. While they started poor, they were able to reach a point where they could support themselves financially. Distribution and promotion became somewhat irrelevant because (1) their fans knew them due to their live shows and (2) these artists divised means for the fans to get their music (at their shows, through local music stores or, in the case of Fugazi, mail order). Obviously these artists are economically middle-class compared to Madonna, but I'm not sure that art necessary entitles someone to great wealth. If you want fast cash, spend your money on the lottery instead of instruments (the odds are probaby better). But if you want to be an artist, it's going to take time and sweat.

BTW, I don't agree with the 24/7 thing at all. William Carlos Williams worked insane (and unpredictable) hours as a general practitioner, yet is considered one of the most influential poets of the 20th century. He certainly wasn't writing poems 24/7, and I don't think musicians need that much time either. What good art does require is focus (FOCK-ASS). If an artist knows what he/she wants, things usually occur pretty quickly.

 

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.


When your best-known poem is shorter than the average express-lane shopping list, it's pretty easy to keep slacker's hours.

 

First off, DiFranco and Fugazi are EXTREME rarities. Out of the literally hundreds of thousands of bands that are out there, only a tiny handful achieve this type of status. Most of them are very niche-oriented and fit the mold of a live, cult type band.

I agree with how they got there and they are models for hard work and how to make it in the business without the traditional support of a major label.

However, lots of artists have taken that route and failed miserably. Not everyone's music translates well to the stage. Matthews is a band full of virtuoso musicians, most of whom could do just fine as jass players. DiFranco honed her skills as an acoustic artist playing in small coffee house type settings to folkies and alterna-kids. Electronic bands can succeed through DJ's playing their stuff in clubs.

But, the vast majority of popular music artists need the support of a record label to help them achieve popularity.

C'mon, that's apples and oranges. To write a poetry really only requires some free time for yourself, a pen and some paper. For musicians, you're talking about personal practice, songwriting, rehersal, playing gigs, making recordings, travelling around to different cities, doing promotion, not to mention coordinating those schedules with the other musicians in your band (which anyone who plays knows is just a ridiculous thing to do), dealing with equipment hassles, doing promotion, etc.

While it isn't impossible, there aren't many jobs I can think of that allow the kind of freedom to write, practice, reherse, tour, record and promote yourself while paying you enough to make a living for yourself and your family.

And, if you want to be great as a musician, you need all those things especially if you want to be a successful musician and have aspirations at wider success than just playing bars a couple times each month and making mediocre music. It takes a lot of time and effort to accomplish that.

 

Liz Phair looks pretty good.

I like those type of chicks.

 

she's on leno right now

 

She killed herself with that third album, which was a brilliant album in every regard.

But it was too bland and middle of the road to be interesting to most musical cliques.