The big news is a recent name change in the face of being sued by a jeweler whose claim to fame is a string of strange infomercials, but what baffles me is that (a) Santigold is still pretty unknown and (b) she's gotten anything other than great reviews online and was beaten out by TV on the Radio, My Morning Jacket, and John Mellencamp for Rollingstone's album of the year.
This is the only album of 2008 that I can play all the way through - and though I'm not as big a fan of some of the middle tracks, they're still better than a lot of the crap out there now. Sure, she got some cool producers to help shape the sound of the album - Diplo, Switch, and Spank Rock pitch in, among others - but the songwriting and the hooks are there, and that's what counts.
Also of note - she's gotten some flack for "selling out" by licensing to Bud Light Lime, Converse, and Grey's Anatomy, among others. As much as I love the music biz rants of guys like Bob Lefsetz and the old school thinking of the DIY punk scene that hated sellouts and mainstream, I go back & forth on this subject... the business has changed, the income sources are different, and yet a good song is still a good song. Do I care if I first heard "Lights Out" on a Bud Light Lime commercial? Does the commercial mode of discovery prevent me from wanting to buy the song? Does buying the song then support the product?
And...does it make sense to crucify artists for wanting to support themselves through their music? The same people yelling - are they the ones who don't want to pay for music anymore? The music community is screaming out for great music - but in a recession, with vacillating gas prices that affect touring, and no one buying albums, can you really judge a musician for licensing to a commercial when that money probably funds the album that you're going to steal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment