Commentary: New MOG Design is Like a "Long Tail" Pitchfork

I have watched a number of music blogging/social networking sites come and go since I jumped into this, and one site that I have always been interested in is MOG. Initially launched as a site focused around music blogging, MOG launched a new design this week, which also highlights a new direction for the site. MOG is now more of a music news aggregator, looking very much long a "long tail" version of Pitchfork.

Visit the new MOG and you will be reminded of the new content-over-look that Pitchfork unveiled several weeks back. The direction of music sites is now emphasizing their wealth of content in such a fashion that is accessible and minimalist. MOG breaks its content down into simple categories, ranging from news, videos and free MP3s to the more specific ones of festivals, covers and "On the Brink" (whose in jail, whose in rehab, etc). This is nothing new - what makes this new MOG impressive is the fact that all of this content is not created by a news team relying on their excellent research skills and emailed tips from fans. All of the content is coming from bloggers (some of it from New and Used Records).

Late last year, the N&UR blog joined the MOG Music Network - a group of blogs who agreed to have their content funneled into MOG pages in exchange for ad revenue. A side banner placed on blogs in the network displays headlines from other blogs, while the mogdotcom Twitter account also links to other blogs. This new design is the site's strongest effort yet to consolidate the content provided by all participating blogs.

In The Long Tail, Chris Anderson writes of shared economies - sites such as Wikipedia which thrive on contributions from thousands of users. In music, the fans (ie the bloggers) have become the predominant source not just for news, but also as tastemaking entities. The new MOG is a great attempt to consolidate that all into one place, creating a strong business model.

I do have one suggestion for the new MOG, though. Anderson also writes the the future of business lies not in selling lots of major stars, but instead selling lots more to niche audiences. There are countless blogs which represent niche genres, and I would like to say the new MOG create a very accessible means of searching these niches (whether your taste be girl groups, black metal or drum-n-bass).

This is Just Stupid: Cash Money Suing DJ Drama

You know how Lil Wayne is one of few bright spots in the dying music industry? Well Wayne's popularity - which includes sold out arena shows and appearances at the Grammy's and Country Music Awards - hasn't come through typical industry manufactured success. In fact, Lil Wayne's mystique and success can largely be attributed to the application of street rap hustle to the internet age. The impact of Wayne's mixtapes, most notably DJ Drama's Dedication 2 cannot be underestimated. Despite the fact that so much of Wayne's music is easily accessible for free, the self-proclaimed "best rapper alive" managed to walk away with the best-selling album of 2008. How does his label respond? By suing the DJs who spread his music through these mixtapes, most notably Drama.

Drama has issued a statement:

This is not a case of Lil Wayne vs. DJ Drama. Me and Wayne are good. I am confident that this matter will be resolved quickly without harming the relationships between myself, Wayne and Cash Money Records. However, due to the ongoing nature of this litigation I do not wish to make any further comments.

Commentary: Something You Should Read

I've been running New and Used Records through its various operations since January 2006. I began running it as a label probably in October of that year. While I have learned a great deal and provided insight into this complex and changing industry, I acknowledge that I still have much to learn. In fact, I think there is a lot everyone still has to learn as the current industry - though exciting - gives us more questions than it does answers. I am constantly looking into resources for musicians and bands, and the Pampelmoose blog (edited by Gang of Four founding member Dave Allen) has proved itself absolutely essential. The other day Allen posted The End of the Music Album as the Organizing Principle and I consider this required reading for an label or musician.

Commentary: Jack White Gets It, Do You?

It is really no big secret that I have a great deal of admiration for Jack White. In one of the very first blog posts I ever wrote, I said, "If music is the universe, then Jack White gets his own planet." Of course, when I look up to an artist in any medium (say Kanye West or Steven Soderbergh), it is usually not just for their talent but also their business savvy. Now, I can welcome White into this club.

The big news of last week was that White went and started himself another supergroup - The Dead Weather. White plays drums in this new band and is surrounded by Alison Mosshart (The Kills) on vocals, Jack Lawrence (The Raconteurs) on bass, and Dean Fertita (Queens Of The Stone Age) on guitar. Equally exciting is where White is taking his own label, Third Man Records. Distributed through Warner Bros. and XL, Third Man has released albums from White projects the White Stripes and the Raconteurs, as well as the White-produced Whirlwind Heat. Now, the label has a physical location in Nashville which "houses the label's offices plus a vinyl record store, photo studio, dark room and performance stage."

"The key is the United Pressing Plant is two blocks away," White adds. "We've set it up so we can put things out immediately."

Artists launching their own labels or production companies is really nothing new. More times than not, they fizzle out after one or two projects. Given White's work ethic and dedication, I have faith that will not be the case here. What excites me most is seeing a label diversifying who they are while creating a one-stop shop for their artists. This is what labels need to do to fight off extinction.

Now, the name Jack White carries a bit more weight these days than my own and I am not simply advocating that all labels follow suit exactly. But, here's what I take from it: with sales being what they are (low), a label's brand needs to be about more than just the music it releases; a record label needs to be a community. Furthermore, getting your music released has never been easier for the independent artist, but there are still areas where artists need help. A label should have a means of making those more accessible and more affordable. It takes a little work, but you don't have to be Jack White to accomplish this.

Commentary: Responding to Robert Smith

Robert Smith drew some attention recently in what was billed as a potential Cure/Radiohead Smackdown when he commented on the pay-what-you-want approach to digital music, which has been employed by Radiohead, Girl Talk, Saul Williams and others. As reported by Pitchfork, Smith told Music Radar:

You can't allow other people to put a price on what you do, otherwise you don't consider what you do to have any value at all and that's nonsense. If I put a value on my music and no one's prepared to pay that, then more fool me, but the idea that the value is created by the consumer is an idiot plan, it can't work.

After drawing some criticism, Smith "clarified" himself via his blog - in all caps mind you:

MY POINT IS NEITHER PARTICULARLY NEW NOR ORIGINAL

NOR EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT RADIOHEADS 'IN RAINBOWS'

BUT IT IS I FEEL STILL COMPELLING

ANY FAMOUS ARTIST WITH A HUGE AND DEVOTED FAN BASE(OFTEN ARRIVED AT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON' ORTWO?) CAN AFFORD TO DO WHAT HE, SHE OR IT WANTS...

INCLUDING GIVING THEIR ART AWAY AS SOME KIND OF 'LOSSLEADER' TO HELP 'BUILD THE BRAND'

ALL WELL AND GOOD (WELL... NOT REALLY! 'LOSS LEADER'?'BUILD THE BRAND'? AAGH! BUT THIS IS THE LINGUA FRANCA... )

HOWEVER

IF THIS 'ART FOR FREE' IDEA BECOMES THE CULTURAL NORM

THEN HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING?

Smith continues: "AN ARTIST HAS TO VALUE THE ART THEY CREATE[.] OTHERWISE I DONT BELIEVE THEY CAN BELIEVE IT TO BE ART[.] I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HEROR (sic) ITS ART AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEPCREATING (sic)[.] AND QUITE HONESTLY AS ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THIS POINT IS UNLIKELY TO BE AN ARTIST[.]"

Smith blog and the issue who raises about valuing one's own art got me thinking about several songs. In all honesty, I do believe artists should be making money. Art should be a sustainable career. A "free" model does open the possibility that you will in fact lose money on your art. I asked Andrew Spencer Goldman of Fulton Lights about this in our interview. Goldman's label, Catbird Records, employed a pay-what-you-want strategy for the digital release of his album, The Way We Ride.

"I've been both hurt and helped by the mp3," Goldman said...

and making TWWR available on the pay-what-you-want model was me just trying to make the best of the situation, particularly in this case when I didn't have wide distribution and/or PR or anything like that. Ideally I don't think bands should have to do that; albums cost money to make, and the idea that every band can go out there and get paid from live shows is just ridiculous.

It isn't that I believe all music should simply be free and I think Goldman's point is more compelling than Smith's simply because Goldman is a working musician, whereas Smith is in a position financially to do whatever he wants.

My main issue right now with the music industry is that too often we are getting into philosophical debates, ie "is it right that people are downloading/streaming music for free?" We need to get into practical debates - the digital landscape is what it is and we need to find ways to successfully navigate it.

HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING? Smith asks. Are we assuming there was an age where artists could in fact earn a living? Every artist I know does not simply survive off their work. The musicians I know do sell their work and tour relentlessly, however still need to pick up session gigs and tour as backing musicians to continue creating their art. When I worked in video editing, my colleagues were all documentary filmmakers who took high paying corporate assignments to later fund their own projects. Artists should be able to earn a living based on art, but few are able to - and that fact was true long before Napster came along.

AN ARTIST HAS TO VALUE THE ART THEY CREATE OTHERWISE I DONT BELIEVE THEY CAN BELIEVE IT TO BE ART Smith says. First and foremost, an artist cannot value their work solely on what it can be sold for. To be a satisfied artist, you need to derive a certain satisfaction from it that is not financial. Just because you are willing to make your work available for cheap or free does meet mean you do not value it.

Furthermore, even before Radiohead said "pay-what-you-want" others have dictated the value of certain art. A product's price is essentially determined by what people are willing to pay for it. Your cd may cost $16.99, but if no one wants to pay that much your album will flop. Tickets to your show may cost $80, but if not enough people are willing to pay that the tour is canceled or scaled down. You may think your painting worth in the millions, but that is really up to the patrons of the auction house.

The point is the problems of the working artist have all been the same, it is simply the technology that has changed. Smith actually acknowledges this by stating, "MY POINT IS NEITHER PARTICULARLY NEW NOR ORIGINAL." Let's embrace the technology and see where we can take it.

Commentary: Saddle Creek Sell New Cursive Album for $1

MP3 - "From the Hips" - Cursive

Here at N&UR headquarters, we are always monitoring new ways artists and labels are releasing their albums. Saddle Creek is currently pre-releasing the digital version of Cursive's new album, Mama I'm Swollen. Today, it costs $1. Tomorrow it will be $2. Wednesday, $3 and so on and so forth until the album's actual release on March 10. Pre-ordering a physical copy also gets you instant MP3s plus cool packaging - the CD features a 19x14 fold out poster featuring hand written lyrics by Tim Kasher, while the draws of the LP include 180 gram colored vinyl, CD, gatefold jacket, and a 15 page booklet. Both include a download card for bonus music and videos. This is how to release an album especially for a label with a recognizable brand name and a band with a loyal following. I like cheap digital downloads, and at $1 and $2, why try and download it for free? In college, my friends and I loved Cursive and had more disposable income - we would have been totally into the CD or vinyl packages.

This is something for artists and labels to think about it. Have your album available at the traditional digital outlets, but think about making a cheap option available for the curious stream. Then create some incentive for someone to purchase the physical copy - a fancy vinyl package is probably does not make financial sense for a young band or label, but there is still a lot that can be done in terms of making an attractive package. Look out for your fans and they will look out for. Be fan friendly, and you will make new friends.

While we are on the subject of Saddle Creek, I noticed the label just added their entire catalog to Emusic, so go back and download some of the classics - Cursive's Burst and Bloom, The Good Life's Black Out, The Faint's Danse Macabre and many, many more.

[Via MBV]

Bonus Tracks:
MP3 - "The Recluse" - Cursive
MP3 - "The Great Decay" - Cursive

Commentary: Bands Are in the T-Shirt Business; How About Labels?

Gang of Four's Dave Allen said something at his Pampelmoose blog recently that really struck me - "the music industry is not hurting, it’s the cd business that is in decline."

Allen advocates for bands to not put a price on their product and sometimes give it away because fans "will never forget the experience they had and they will tell their friends that you are the coolest band on earth for doing that." Allen has added that bands are in the t-shirt business because the profit margins are greater. Allen adds:

I am not being facetious when I say that bands are in the T-shirt business as I believe very strongly that as music slips down to zero in dollar value then artists must move quickly to find different ways to make money from their art. [The 'value' of music is based more than ever these days in emotion and much less in dollars.]

While bands have to find new approaches to selling their merchandise, so do labels need to get more creative with how they release and distribute albums.

Polyvinyl's approach to Of Montreal's Skeletal Lamping last year intrigued me. Besides making the album available on CD, vinyl and as a digital download, the album was also available in other formats - a lantern, a button set, wall decals, tote bags, and t-shirts. With purchase of any one of these items, you also received a free download of the album.

After reading Allen's article, I forwarded it on to Shiloe, who had in fact already seen it. I saw them employ the name-your-price strategy at the Scatterbrain Jamboree last Saturday. While they experiment, so will we try out new means of connecting and engaging with our fans.

Most bands still need the services a label can provide, but labels will need more than just record sales to stay afloat. To stay relevant, labels need to stop seeing the CD as the business. For New and Used Records, the album - in whichever format - is not the product. The album is a promotional tool - it promotes our artists and their shows, and it promotes N&UR the brand. The CD business may be in decline, but we are putting our hands in a diverse array of projects to ensure that we are not part of that decline.

Commentary: Morrisey Has the Best Album Covers

I've been thoroughly enjoying Morrissey's career renaissance (some call it a "comeback") that launched with 2004's You Are the Quarry. I love how Morrissey has refashioned himself as a bitter, sassy, politically frustrated and sexually inactive social deviant. 2006's Ringleader of the Tormentors was positively magnificent, and the first listens to Years of Refusal are triggering high levels of excitement for my ears. Aside from brilliant music, these last three albums have also showcased three amazing album covers. In an age when few listeners are focused on the physical product, Morrissey still realizes that the album cover is still a place for empowerment and subversion - that Years of Refusal cover was making the press rounds long before we heard any leaks.

All three albums can be streamed at Morrissey's Myspace.

Commentary: It's Not About The Band

This past weekend, I was able to indulge again in one of my guiltiest of pleasures - MTV's Making the Band 4. Since taking over the series from Lou Pearlman and O-Town, Diddy has brilliantly turned MTB into another force in his media empire. Last season, Diddy took his three MTB artists - Danity Kane, Day 26, Donnie Klang - for a ride on his yacht and admitted that he was not even making money from the music business. While other moguls are scrambling now, Diddy long ago realized the potential for music to be a loss leader for other ventures. Having now created three groups and one solo artist over several seasons, Diddy has turned MTB into its own recognizable brand as well.

Last season ended with Diddy firing two members from Danity Kane - a move which seems to have lead to the band's breakup. If so, it would be the second MTB band to meet a premature end. In the case of Da Band, the group was never successful, but Danity Kane was a multi-platinum selling success ... why would Diddy be so quick to dismantle the group? After asking myself this question, it occurred to me that Making the Band was is at all about the "bands" being "made" - it is a lesson in branding. Diddy has used the show not only to sell CDs, but also to sell arena tours, a dumb catchphrase ("No Bitchassness") posted on t-shirts (pictured above), and his other business ventures (cuts to a Sean John billboard in Time's Square are frequent on the show). Diddy doesn't need the band to be successful for Making the Band to be a success.

The music business is floundering, but reality shows about music - Making the Band and, even more dramatically, American Idol - are doing rather well. Manufacturing drama on a reality television show proves more important than manufacturing a successful artist. American Idol winners come and go (anybody seen Taylor Hicks or Ruben Studdard lately) but the show remains relevant. Essentially these shows are not about selling music, but simply about selling television. Besides, both shows have taught us that manufacturing stars is easy - if one band breaks up, there are many more potentials ready to take their place.

Commentary: What's My Age Again?

This was a good week for 16-year old boys (or rather 26-year old boys who still act 16) with the announcement that Blink 182 would be reuniting. It was also a good week for hypermasculine jerks and assholes with the announcement that Limp Bizkit would be reuniting. I feel like I've gone back in time to an era where Jason Giambi plays for the A's, Ken Griffey Jr is on the Mariners, and Blink 182 and Limp Bizkit are considered "alternative." Oh, wait. Can Blink 182 and Limp Bizkit help save this dying industry? The last time we heard from Limp Bizkit, it was 2005, and actually barely anyone wanted to hear The Unquestionable Truth (Part One). All respective members of Blink have had their own bands that have failed to measure up to the numbers they scored as a trio. Every label person I meet tells me that breaking new artists is really hard. Perhaps this is the new industry strategy - rather than trying to break new talent, keep re-breaking old talent. I predict bands will start breaking up after an album or two - not because of "creative differences" which their press release will say, but because the "reunion tour" three years later will be so great for marketing.

Related Posts:
Jerks and Assholes Mourn the End of Limp Bizkit

Commentary: Grammys (Stupidly) Pull Videos

Hey! Check out this awesome performance from last Sunday's Grammys of (a nine month pregnant!) M.I.A. with Kanye West, Jay-Z, T.I. and Lil Wayne performing "Paper Planes"/"Swagger Like Us"...

... oh. Sorry, that video is no longer available, much like every other Grammy performance uploaded to YouTube, which were pulled not even 24 hours after the show. And I cannot seem to figure out why.

The Grammys are irrelevant - we know that. Their ratings pale in comparison to what American Idol draws in. Despite this, the Grammys actually had an opportunity in 2009 to matter.

I caught only the beginning of the show's live telecast. No disrespect to Clive Davis - I could not help but feel a little bit of contempt watching him smile for his extended standing ovation. I was watching the clueless representatives of a dying industry take a moment to pat themselves on the back - and for what? Davis is a legend - but with the mass layoffs happening, record companies are working hard to ensure that there will not be another Clive.

My contempt aside, a funny thing did happen on Monday - friends and bloggers were talking about performances with a kind of "you gotta see this"-ness (reserved largely for Radiohead with the USC Marching Band) in much the same way we talk about Super Bowl commercials in the days that follow. This presented the Grammys (and the major labels) with an amazing opportunity - to continue the event's significance beyond the constraints of the show's live telecast.

In my opinion, the "Swagger Like Us" performance was legendary. It opened with M.I.A. performing "Paper Planes" (a song which I never expected to become so massive) then turned into a performance of a song that samples that. I know the four MCs of the "Rap Pack" are friendly, but seeing them perform that song together felt like a one-off deal. Furthermore, that performance represented what music is today in 2009. Why should it not be allowed to spread and be discussed and have its legend cemented?

Furthermore, Grammy awards and performances always produce a spike in the sales of the showcased artists. By allowing the content to be further spread, wouldn't an even more significant sales spike be likely? Couldn't this industry use a few extra sales right now? Also, allowing these videos to remain on YouTube and wherever else could - gasp - promote the Grammys as an event people would actually want to watch!

Some of my favorite bloggers produced some great (and often hilarious) commentary on the Grammys. Check it out at Bad Tempered Zombie and Passion of the Weiss.

Commentary: Following Radiohead's Lead - Consequences of a New Business Model

Two weeks ago, everyone was ga-ga over Radiohead's bold move to raise a mighty middle finger to the major labels and independently release In Rainbows. Even more bold - the band's decision to allow fans to set their own price. Because news travels fast, and business models adapt faster than ever, it didn't take long before others followed suit. Trent Reznor announced his plans to stay a free agent, while a record he produced will receive a release treatment similar to Radiohead's. Out today, Saul Williams The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust! is available for free or a $5 "contribution." As Pitchfork reported last week, those who pay have "their choice of DRM-free 192kbps or 320kbps mp3s, or the giant, uncompressed FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) format. If you're a bit light at the moment, Saul's got you, though you cheapskates will have to settle for 192kbps mp3s."

Of the approach, Reznor said, "There are obvious similarities in how Radiohead just released their new record and the way we've chosen to. After thinking about this way too much, I feel we've improved upon their idea in a few profound ways that benefit the consumer."

First, what I like about this model is the "trust factor." In the heyday of file-sharing (which I believe we are still on) the popular defense for one's illegal downloading habits was the fact that the artist would probably not see much of the CD sales anyway. No, those would go to the evil major label - and who cares about stealing from them? With their absurb lawsuits against alleged file-shares, these major labels have done little to shed their red devil horn image. In contrast, Radiohead and Saul are clearly "not evil." By ensuring the availability of their music to virtually everyone, a level of trust is built between artist and fan, thus increasing the liklihood of a fan to, say, buy a t-shirt or an expensive concert ticket.

On the opposing side of the "trust factor" would be Billy Corgan. When Corgan "reunited" the Smashing Pumpkins, he cut deals with major chain stores (who sell CDs at a loss), giving each a copy of Zeitgeist with a different exclusive track. If fans wanted to obtain each song legally, they would in turn have to buy each copy of the album.

(It should be noted hear that the real loser in all of this is the independent record store - though that is cause for a separate essay).

All praise for these daring artists aside, such an action is not without consequences. What frightens me most about the current state of the music industry is not illegal downloading - but rather what appears to be the mirror image of the American economic structure. The musically rich are getting richer, the musical poor are getting poorer (and more abundant), while the musical middle class ceases to exist. Here is how I see it: Radiohead and Trent Reznor represent the upper middle class. They not only survive off their art, they no longer need actually CD sales to sustain their career. In fact, the CD is more of a means to an end - a promotional item for something larger, like a tour. In the lower upper class would be the bands who recently ascended from ranks of indie Gods (Death Cab For Cutie, Arcade Fire, the Shins, Spoon, the Decemberists, Modest Mouse) to serious major label support, Saturday Night Live appearances, television and movie soundtracks, and commercial placement.

Just a few years ago, these acts probably still maintained day jobs, and spread their name through rigorous touring schedules. Now, they've become mainstream. But if you were hoping for a bit of Reaganomics, the trickle has yet to make its way down to the next generation of indie would-be-stars. The aforementioned artists would receive a good deal of attention from Letterman, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, Stereogum, college radio and corporate radio alike, leaving less space for the actual underplayed artist.

There was a time when bands left behind a model one could try and follow, but now that model has turned into "get your song on TV or bust." It's an exciting time for music, but also a painfully difficult one. The Radiohead model creates a template for other acts of the same caliber to adopt, but does not create a reasonable one for younger acts. On the otherhand, Saul Williams is nowhere near as recognizable a name as Radiohead, so what this model does for him may prove more interesting when discussing the future of our business.

Commentary: The Impact of Britney Spears on Mass Culture

Britney Spears new video - "Gimme More" - is rather anticlimactic but the concept is somewhat fascinating. In the video, a blond Spears sits at a bar transfixed by a pole-dancing brunette version of herself. It's as though Spears herself is struggling to understand just why everyone is so intently focused on her - while at the same time she works to create a spectacle of herself in order to ensure that such focus is never lost.

Was it last week that everyone became overly obsessed with Britney Spears's abilities as a mother? Well, we've been hearing this discussion for over a year now as part of a greater "What's the Matter with Britney" national dialogue. In fact, whether it be her choice to drive with a baby in her lap (because she's "country, y'all") or throwing up on a soon-to-be-ex-boyfriend in the car after leaving a night club, this Britney dialogue has become the most important national dialogue of the past two years. It's not Iraq or the 2008 election - the decisions of Britney Spears are what are affecting most Americans these days.

In fact, it would not be such a leap to suggest that Spears is more than partly responsible for the shift in focus to entertainment from national news outlets. Dan Rather criticized his former network for losing a sense of the line between entertainment and news - but here is the dilemma: is it the responsibility of the news to tell you what is important, or to report on what you think is important? It strikes me as though we never had this debate at such a high level. It strikes me as though Britney Spears has had more impact on mass culture than any celebrity in decades.

One could argue of the "trainwreck"-like nature of Britney's downfall, but that would only partially explain the full-blown national obsession with her. When a celebrity falls from grace in such a fashion, their rehab visits and personal problems fill the gossip pages and Jay Leno monologues for a matter of weeks, but barring any significant comeback, they tend to fall out of the public eye. In the case of Britney, however, the press has never turned their backs even if there was nothing of interest to report.

Last week, her comeback single ("Gimme More") was officially released, and proceeded to become one of the top selling songs in the country (including a number one spot on the iTunes charts). Fitting of the song's title, America just wants more Britney - be it rehab, questionable parenting, sexy dancing, or a new song. Her life will always be of interest to Americans, even if the motives are unclear - we'll criticize and poke fun at her life decisions, all the while rooting for her inevitable comeback and purchasing whatever consumable scraps the machine will feed us. It's not a case of whether she is loved or hatred - her presence is simply always desired.

Further Reading:
:: Britney Spears' Constant Presence In Public Eye Could Be Behind Custody Loss"

Commentary: Has Perez Hilton Become Too Famous + Chris Crocker's "Leave Britney Alone"

Watching Perez Hilton perform "Jesus Walks" on an MTV show where non-rapping celebrities learn how to rap lead me to wonder whether the gossip provocateur had actually become too famous. For one who had successfully gained notoriety on the sidelines with a mix of celebrity ridicule and worship, what will his shift as a member of that world make of him? Undoubtedly, Perez is one who worships the Hollywood life with both self-aware mockery and undeniable envy, and being accepted as a member of that world has to be validating. But are celebrity commentators destined to become celebrities themselves. As Hilton competes alongside a who's who of D-list celebrities, is his winking back ironically or desperately trying to fit in?

There's no real blueprint for a fame of this nature - Perez is not famous for a particular talent, nor is he famous for being famous. Internet celebrities have soon there chance in the celluloid spotlight restricted to a few fleeting moments on Best Week Ever. Can Perez have any kind of career? Now that Perez has his foot in the door, will it be possible to look at his blog the same way?

Chris Crocker: "Leave Britney Alone"
A recent video from YouTube/MySpace celebrity Chris Crocker has been generating a good deal of media attention, not to mention over 4,000,000 hits and a number of parodies.

In an interview with MSNBC, Crocker says, "If she saw it, I would like her to tune everyone out and let that video serve as a message to her that (she does) have fans, that we don’t just like her when she’s glitzy and glamorous, we like her for real reasons, and we’re sticking by her."

Crocker adds that he had a falling out with the aforementioned Hilton over Britney. "We talked on the phone every day. It’s kind of like he said to me, 'I don’t want to talk to you about Britney.' So I couldn’t talk to him as a friend anymore because we have such opposing opinions. If I can’t talk to someone about what I care about, see ya! I choose Britney over you. I would choose Britney over my mother."

Hilton recently produced his own spoof.

Crocker responds: "He tried to say that my video about Britney was cheap, but a smart move. How is mocking me … how is that not cheap?"

Commentary: The Rebirth of Female Rap

You don't really hear about female rappers in the music press unless there's a scandal - Lauryn Hill's reclusiveness, Lil Kim's legal woes, or Foxy Brown's hearing loss, for example. As for actual coverage about up-and-coming female rappers - yeah, not so much. Thankfully, that may be about to change (for a short while at least) with a number of buzzworthy tracks dropping from acts both new and familiar. Kid Sister's "Pro Nails," Lil Mamas' "Lipgloss" and Eve's "Tambourine" all have the makings of a musical movement. The latter two have cracked top 40 radio, while "Pro Nails" features a verse from Kanye West. Yet, they sound like nothing else out there. All are distinguishable from one another, but share a common throwback 1980's/double dutch/Go Team vibe that is positively refreshing. It's always nice when you find the most avant garde shit is happening in the most mainstream places.

Kid Sister is the one with probably the most indie rock crossover potential. Her flow recalls that of M.I.A. and the sample-heavy beats from Kanye's DJ - A-Trak - fit nicely together with the likes of Pitchfork darlings LCD Soundsystem, Girl Talk, and Dan Deacon. I first heard "Pro Nails" on Kanye's Can't Tell Me Nothing mixtape and I thought it was a classic, forgotten gem - not a new track. You can stream that and three others at her MySpace.

As for Lil Mama's hit "Lipgloss" - this is the kind of song you would expect to suck. Lil Mama's only 16, and the joint is about lipgloss, obviously. But any haters in the indie rock crowd should realize that a decade from now, this will totally be a kitsch classic. Her bio begins, "Many fail to realize that one of the beauties of Hip Hop and the key essence of its survival is the fact that it is an envelope pushing culture which constantly evolves. It is driven, inspired, and motivated by the youth who keep it fresh and energized," and damn if that doesn't ring true. Lil Mama's delivery is tight and exciting, but it's it that crazy, minimalist hand-clap beat that does it for me...


And on the subject of crazy beats, how about Eve's "Tambourine" with Swizz Beats? Fucking nuts ...

Commentary: Indie Rockers Cover the Mainstream

There comes a time in the lives of all indie rockers when they must cover a song far more popular than any of there's. They can do this for a b-side, as a live show staple, or maybe work it in as interlude. Regardless of what form it takes, it is a major point of your indie rock credibility. The last decade has seen Travis take on "Baby ... One More Time," the Vines singing "Ms. Jackson," and even Radiohead tackling "Nobody Does It Better." The trend continues into 2006 with indie legend Ted Leo covering Kelly Clarkson's 2005 smash, "Since You Been Gone." Leo opts not for fancy production, instead a few strums of the acoustic guitar. I'm sure he nailed it one take, and the song has a kind of drunk, open mic feel to it. It only waivers when he interludes with "Maps" by the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. It's fun, but you probably won't be listening to it on repeat. For my money, the best cover out right now comes courtesy of Tortoise and Bonnie "Prince" Billy who dip into the pop charts of decade's past. Their collaborative record, The Brave and the Bold includes covers of Elton John, the Minutemen and Richard Thompson, but none is more striking than their take on Bruce Springsteen's "Thunder Road." Slow, cool, bluesy - impossible to recognize aside from the lyrics - it does just what a great cover should; it redefines the song. The Boss is probably very proud.

"Since You Been Gone" (mp3 at Veritas Lux Mea): 3
"Thunder Road" (mp3 at Fuel Friends): 4.5

In related news, the umpteenth Radiohead tribute album, Exit Music: Songs with Radio Heads is out now (streaming here). Stereogum has a pair of MP3s. Review coming very soon!