And another thing…

Piano on the beach? A pinch of Elton John, a dash of Jane Campion and a big dollop of cheese.

Some reasons why Delta Goodrem annoys (trying not to sound like a fan forum bitch…)

She wants to be Kate Bush but she’s actually a Sony pawn: There’s a contradiction when a self-fashioned Kate Bush waif launches her career with ‘Born to Try’, an anthem of competitive drive, and a sort of self-reflexive statement about her desire to reach number 1. For Delta this has been an enduring tension between the banal and the creatively high-reaching, as she forges a unique niche as half Celine Dion, half Tori Amos. Her definitive 2004 Arias comeback performance exemplifies this unsettling pop hybridity:

Note the pretentious setting: piano surrounded by candles, presumably scented with jasmine. Note the initial “Delta playing piano” section to demonstrate that Delta can indeed play the piano. Note the movement into farce half way through as she steps away from the piano (even through inexplicably the piano somehow keeps playing), walks to centre stage and deploys some vintage Kate Bush theatrical dancing that veers awfully close to Mr. G. Note also that she cannot hit the high notes. And note ALSO that this most theatrical of lovesongs is about The Poo, possibly the dimmest man alive, as the exquisite Age of Love reality show proved.

She wants to be sugar-sweet, but she’s part of the fame machine: I don’t technically have a problem with plastic surgery unless it’s systematically concealed and written off as natural beauty (“I’ve discovered yoga”, “I’ve lost my puppy fat”). This makes other people feel bad and entrenches generic beauty codes. Particularly for Delta who has legions of 4 year olds following her every move, her transformation into Malibu Barbie seems a bit jarring. The photos do not lie [although for legal reasons they are perhaps misleading]. Delta has had [seems to have had] one (or two) nose jobs, which provides more evidence of tension between her quest for artistic credibility and her counter-tendency towards lowest common-denominator conventionality. It’s kind of like Tori Amos getting botox, although at least she had the courage to admit to a bit of “feng shui of the face”. 

Compelling? And for even more evidence…

She should stop shoving her relationship with Brian McFadden in our faces: That’s right. Some of my best friends are married. I don’t have a problem with marriage. But I don’t have to see it every day. Keep it to yourselves, keep it in the bedroom.

I am generally irritated by Natalie Bassingthwaite. She seems fame-whorey and careerist, careerism being endearing only if a spectacular career is actually obtained (e.g. Madonna). Accordingly her new single Someday Soon makes me scoff with particular enthusiasm whenever it’s played on MIX FM or Musicxmax. Because this terrible song firmly fits the mold of what I like to call the “self-fulfilling statement of success” second (or third) single, a nauseating pop maneuver that normally follows this familiar pattern:

• Act releases moderately successful first single.
• Act releases second (or third) single which is generally a ballad. Single muses about the long path travelled to fame, the cost of success etc. Song adopts a reflective “looking back” tone, generally with shots of act “keeping it real” despite their success. Examples of “keeping it real” can include drinking herbal tea on white couches, or walking along actual, like, streets. 

While, for example, the Spice Girls’ Mama represents a “statement of success” third single, it’s slightly different because they had actually achieved phenomenal success (although Mama is memorable for its own reasons, e.g. its revisionist version of Spice Girls history, with the Girls inexplicably cast as childhood friends rather than careerist fame-whores meeting at their first audition). But when Nat Bass reassures others that they will, one day, find their showbiz dream (in an odd reprise of her Kate Bush Don’t Give Up role) it seems a little premature — her success seems so tentative, and she seems to crave it so much. 

UPDATE: Here’s the official PSB link…

Happiness NOW!

One of my more perverse interests is the bad self-help gurus who frequent day-time television. Today I enjoyed “Happiness NOW!”, by happiness expert Robert Holden, which, as the author told an easy-target Oprah, worked from a law-of-attraction approach… in other words, if you project positivity into the world, you’ll get positivity back. 

To prove his point, Holden and O dragged 6 average Joes onto the set to talk about their happiness or failure to reach happiness. Having completed surveys to measure their “happiness levels”, those who weren’t adequately happy were then systematically berated for not being in touch with their inner happiness, because “happiness starts now”. You just have to get in touch with your inner happiness… the world is inside your head… if it’s a happy world you construct then you’ll be happy. Such platitudes were then followed by a smug Dr Holden and O talking about the moments when they each discovered that they were the masters of their universe. This became quite surreal when O was talking about the moment “in 1985” when she realized that her world existed in “her head”, and it was hers to control… Hmmm.

I couldn’t find this particular footage, but here’s O talking on Larry King about how, I kid you not, a call from the casting director of The Color Purple is the basis of her particular brand of metaphysics:

My problem with this kind of stuff? Where do I start…

1) Law-of-attraction frameworks (eg the base of The Secret – for those who like their metaphysics by Channel 9 producers) provide a false sense of agency based on blaming the miserable and sick for their own state of affairs. This is really just a thinly veiled Social Darwinist approach: she got cancer because she was anxious, he’s poor because he wasn’t positive enough… Rather than working hard or otherwise as the deciding factor between success or a swift descent through the social sediment (eg ignoring class), law-of-attraction simply swaps work for “positivity”. This means people can feel comfortable for their successes because the less successful just weren’t positive enough – genetics, class, prejudice be damned – and dampen their fears of the great unknowns, eg cancer, which can be warded off through positivity alone (which I’m sure is a factor, but not the only factor). This might be my own pathology here (cynic, pessimist), but this sort of stuff irks me deeply.

2) Yapping on about connecting to your “inner happiness” trivializes the mechanics through which people can feel happy and secure. Yes, attitude is important, but there are a whole host of other factors that effect outlook and disposition – financial security, genetics, health, intra-family dynamics etc. Asserting that within any of these contexts one should be able to connect to their own happiness adds another thing to worry about. Why have I failed at happiness?

3) Self-help authors are not disinterested observers. They’ve got something to sell, so it’s in their interest that we believe in a quick-fix to happiness.

4) Telling people that they can feel happy if they want to is very, very similar to telling people to just get on with it.

5) AND (this might be too cynical, but) the same consumer capitalist societies which allow people like Oprah to find their happiness cannot function if everyone is able to create their ideal lives. Oh my god I’m so negative…

But seriously, when did Oprah get completely loopy with this kind of stuff? Is this what happens with obscene wealth and power?

Promising!

I really, really, really like this. Could this be an impending Autumn of amazing pop? I wasn’t a huge fan of Fundamental (a bit too minimal for my liking — to be appreciated, but never listened to), but this seems a bit lighter and… umm, tinklier. Actually, it reminds me of Sugababes’ Ace Reject, or The Best Song of All Time. Wouldn’t mind some new Pet Shop Boys themes though. The emptiness of beauty, taking too much, “more, more, more” — a bit Dorian Gray, isn’t i?