Former LA Times pop critic Ann Powers came storming out of the gate yesterday with the first post for her new gig at NPR Music. Titled “It’s the Summer of Selling Out, and It Feels Fine,” her piece uses last weekend’s Coachella festival and the current crop of American Idol frontrunners to argue that 2011 is shaping up to be a good year “for all kinds of fans who like their music to feel free while it still aims for the center of the culture’s attention.” Part of Powers’s point is that “selling out” and making great music don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
Although we have immense respect for the underground, we think Powers makes an important point. The tale of a talented but naïve band signing their lives away to a major label and then collapsing under the pressure to sell product is a common narrative, but it’s also far from the only outcome. After the jump, we list ten bands that ditched the indies for the majors, licensed their music to commercials, and went pop — and were better off for it, artistically.
Now that we’ve had a while to process Lady Gaga’s new single, “Born This Way,” we have to admit we don’t love it. Because hey, we liked “Express Yourself” 20 years ago when Madonna did it. It won’t stop us from adoring Gaga and supporting the song’s message. But when Elton John starts calling it “the new gay anthem,” worthy of replacing the immortal “I Will Survive,” we’ve got to put our foot down. For one thing, there are plenty of much better new, queer anthems out there. Our list of ten strong candidates, all of which have come out in the 21st century, are after the jump.
And now to address a little rumor. As we tweeted yesterday, our friends over at BlackBook think that Jay-Z is making an appearance at tonight’s big Diesel party at Webster Hall before he headlines All Points West tomorrow night. (For those you playing along at home, Jay-Z took over for the Beastie Boys following their tour cancellation.) As far as we knew, The Roots, Passion Pit, Noisettes, The Clipse, and Cobra Starship were the only acts on the bill. Read More »
The only real advantage to the Internet hype cycle is that today’s annoyance is tomorrow’s afterthought. Still, we’re particularly put off this week by the prevalence of unnecessary controversy tethered to iconic imagery. OK, so maybe we’re hypocrites for perpetuating the cycle, but can we put them away already? After the jump, the four images (and accompanying non-controversies) sending our gossip meters into annoyance overload.
In an ironic turn of events, we recently stalked — er, caught up with — the creator of new NYC-based celeb-sighting site omgicu, Hugh Dornbush. Sort of like a full-time Gawker Stalker, after joining omgicu, you report your sightings on the fly, via text message. Likewise, the site will text you about sightings of celebs you want updates on.
Flavorpill: You call omgicu “participatory celebrity gossip,” where anyone can determine who’s worth knowing about. What’s wrong with good old US Weekly?
Hugh Dornbush: Celebrity gossip readers are still given the same stale news about the same stale people. We’ve seen how disruptive services such as Blogger, Netflix, or YouTube allow different types of mass media to be broken up and consumed by niche audiences in a more individualized fashion. But gossip is still controlled by a handful of tastemakers who determine who and what is newsworthy, and then they feed it to people. We can empower the consumers of celebrity gossip and culture to become the creators of it. We can say: I just saw someone who I think is remarkable for one reason or another, and here’s what they’re up to right now.
FP: Besides users sending texts to the site, if someone tells omgicu about a celebrity, you send another text about it immediately. That’s like a stalker’s wet dream. Aren’t you worried about a celebrity getting… bombarded by fans?
Because we can’t all escape from our desks to enjoy 72-degree weather and international contemporary art, Flavorpill’s resident guru Paul Laster will be bringing you daily bold-face name littered updates and photos from Art Basel Miami all week. If you missed yesterday’s first installment, read it now.
According to the NEW YORK POST, RAFAELLO FOLLIERI, otherwise known as the man who brought ANNE HATHAWAY a crazy amount of tabloid exposure, has been sentenced to 54 months in prison.
For what? Defrauding investors out of millions using a picture snapped with the Pope to imply he had pull at the Vatican and could get a discount on church-owned real estate. I feel like anyone dumb enough to fall for that one should be locked up with him, and for twice as long.
Our favorite part of the story: “Prosecutors said Follieri was splurging with money he made from the scam, buying expensive clothes, meals and a $37,000-a-month Manhattan apartment, as well as exotic vacations and private jets for his famous girlfriend.”
But wait, we thought that gullible Princess Mia was the one paying his rent. He certainly can’t be referring to intrepid journalist Andy Sachs — she would have seen right through this scheme.
Regardless, I guess you no longer need a creepy con ex when you’re suddenly playing a bad ass character with some “really cool” Oscar buzz.
So which Hathaway had this bizarre judgment lapse? After the jump we’ve asked JESSICA GROSE over at JEZEBEL to weigh in with her expert opinion. Read More »
