Article: The Problems with Brand Loyalty

Tesco have recently done a new line of adverts with a fake-real couple, whose very life seems to depend on the existence of said colossus. Obviously, these adverts are very bad, as indeed most adverts are. But even if I try to get past the fact that this “real” couple is made up of well know actors, I am still stuck with their awfully embarrassing, near stomach turning brand loyalty. This series of adverts essentially demonstrate an insane commercial dependency that’s ratio is severely biased towards simple stupidity, and not the supposedly intended hilarity of the couple’s shenanigans. I’m sorry to be so bloody serious, but they just piss me off. The absolute worst for me was a recent one regarding a humorous scene in which (get this) the family’s car runs out of petrol, so they trek for miles past perfectly good petrol stations to get to Tesco - the only place for them. Now, fair enough, this is supposed to be a bit tongue in cheek, but there is also a point behind it – that Tesco is really very bloody good, and you, viewer should take heed of this couple’s attitude and spend all the money you possible can at the store from now on. In short, it is attempting to encourage ever increasing brand loyalty toward the store and demonstrate such actions as essentially a good thing for you, for your life, for the world. 


When the topic of brand loyalty is portrayed in adverts generally, I however fail to see anything beyond idiocy. Such idiocy is evident in the portrayal of the couple in the above described advert, but actually I think such activities are generally for simple-minded people who are a little too easily influenced. To an extent of course we are all at some base level brand loyal; we all buy the same products again and again because it is easier, because we understand them, because we like them. This is fair enough; a lot of stuff is great and deserves to be bought, plus we are all busy and don’t always want to think about things and make decisions. But the actual concept of brand loyalty itself, and the utilization of it through consumer ignorance or commercial vulgarity is so so stupid. Why should we be brand loyal? Because they have served us so well, provided a personal service, even had a fucking clue who we are? Unlikely. Companies, shops, brands and the like typically exist to serve their own means – e.g. making as much cash as possible. Unless it is a small shop or company that provides a personal service, or have a genuine passion for their work and products, we don’t really owe them any kind of loyalty. In fact, they owe us for being their customers, keeping them in the green and all that. And yes, there are reward cards and special offers, but these are typically just devices to get us to spend yet more money with them. Coercion not rewards, for shame!


I suppose I could concede that it can be easy to get sucked into brand loyalty at times. There is often a halo of promotion around commodities that contribute to a life style that the consumer may or may not want to become involved in, which is dependent on how products are portrayed in magazines, shops and on telly, through both intended and unintended product placement. Indeed furthermore, everything we purchase is a brand of sorts; a product created by a company and sold in some way, however in discreetly, through that brand. This is discussed by Gisele Scanlon in of one of my current reads - The Goddess Experience. This quasi-magazine formatted book floats around the general topic of brands, brand loyalty and "The Want" , a term Scanlon has coined for when one see some commodity you inexplicably desire, regardless of price or necessity. Scanlon seems to relish the concepts of brands, loyalty and The Want without hesitation, stating that such notions are apt extensions and representations of ourselves - a declaration of our tastes and by proxy who we are. Scanlon likens this to a tribal code, a concept which is certainly evident within women’s fashion; whether you are part of the Prada, Topshop or Primark tribe is at least a significant representation of your style and taste (and the size of your wallet) for example. I certainly agree that there are aspects of brand selection that reflect personality; indeed your commercial choices can be as representative of yourself as your music or film tastes.


What I dislike from Scanlon however is her enjoyment of brand loyalty; her faith and near immersion in it is a bit disconcerting. She states that she buys into a brand because it gives her 'that warm fuzzy feeling', that 'this is me'. Surely at the very most a brand or commodity should be an aspect or reflection of your personality. How can a brand, as aged or complex as you like be a representation of a whole human being? I don’t really want to put my communism hat on, but has capitalism got that much of a grip that it can actually convince people that mere products or brands literally represent the epitome of a person’s very being? At the very most, the entire of collection of a person’s commodities and brand selections could direct one to educated presumptions on an individual’s personality. To believe in the personification of brands in a more devout manner is to become a fucking tool. This is most evidently exampled with Scanlon’s statement that when she finds a brand, she "adopt[s] it and wear[s] it like a badge". This is surely a degeneration of the brand term back to its predecessor meaning of branding property such as cattle. By wearing your chosen brand like a badge you are essentially reducing yourself to some uber-cheap employee or company lackey. Such notions are disconcertingly close to the bizarre adidas trouser trend of the late 1990s, when everyone who was anyone had to wear those awful polyester things in every disgusting neon/nylon creation imaginable. I mean what the fuck was that about? Those trousers were awful, yet everyone fucking wore them! I think this can be boiled down to the tribal thing: at school if you wore them you were accepted. But paying to essentially advertise shit sports wear is not that far away from paying thousands to parade around with your new Prada bag, no matter how you want to romantically define it inside your head.


So what have we learnt through this little stint, dear reader? That brands are evil succubuses and we should veto them completely for home grown, home made and the like? Well of course not, I’m not really a bloody communist. Brands are just there now, and thanks to Adam Smith and the Free Market, they will never go away. Capitalism has surreptitiously developed in a manner that not only encourages our greed, but also our satisfaction and pleasure. We want stuff, and this is the way their selling it to us has materialized. But please, I pray you, don’t fall into the trap of brand loyalty too lightly. Adverts will continue to plough the value of such actions into your brain, but it is total horse shit. From my perspective, of course, I think the vast majority of adverts are so bloody awful I can’t believe anyone actually falls for them, but advertising is apparently a multi billion pound/dollar industry, so there must be a lot of poor sods who really are thick enough to continue buying into this shit again and again. The bigger the brand, the more ubiquitous it becomes, both in our minds as consumers and in commerce generally. This ubiquity begets familiarity, which in turn begets loyalty. But as we know ladies, bigger doesn’t always mean better; compare the likes of ginormous brands like McDonalds, Smirnoff and Walkers, with smaller brands like Gourmet Burger, Stolichnaya and Tyrrells, for example. Diversify, try different things, spread your loyalty about a bit. And furthermore, don’t get stuck in the “lifestyle” honey trap. These shiny new things are not a part of you; they are more a means of getting to you, and your all important cash. Besides, much of the time brands are anonymous anyway. For example, do you know your brand of bed, light bulb, soap? Unless it is spelt out in massive letters upon or about your very person, who else knows the significance of the brand, its attitudes and ethics and why it speaks to you, why it defines you so perfectly. You must define yourself first, you special, unique, multifaceted, sentient being, you. The rest is just stuff.

Article: In Defence of Tom Jones

Earlier today I was perusing an infuriating article on the journalistic shithole that MSN often is, by the bloody un-marvellous Tom Townshend. The article in question was basically a list of overrated artists and groups in the music biz, which to my mind was just plain shit. Certainly, some of the additions to the list that he proffered are quite rightly more than a bit overrated (Duffy and The Verve, for example), but his method of criticism was truly awful. Too much opinion expressed as fact always gets on my nerves, but Townshend also changes his tack so much as to why something is overrated that it is disorientating to the reader as to whether such artists are really overrated or not. His critique of Morrissey is a good example here. Townshend fawns over Morrissey’s earlier work before going on to proclaim his later musical contributions as only ok. Not shit. OK. This may be, but in what way does that relate to his overrated-ness exactly? It would appear that Townshend doesn’t really know, and hence he cobbles together an accusatory finger firstly at Morrissey being a bit of a twat (a feature that has always been evident), and secondly that he has to employ session musicians to “massacre [his] greatest hits” as he is no longer in The Smiths.


Townshend additionally makes some awfully abusive comments re some artists, Tom Jones in particular. The essentials behind why Townshend feels Jones is overrated is for the base reason that he is a bit old. Criticising him for his “arthritic fingers” and grey hair has no relation to the quality of his music. Townshend further slags off Jones for his supposed shit voice. Are we listening to the same person? Tom Jones has still got a fantastic set of pipes, especially, if you will insist on bringing age into the equation, as he is 69. Personally it feels a bit like Townshend isn’t actually capable of perceiving music as fun and entertaining. Anyone who saw Tom Jones at Glastonbury this year could hardly say he is not a fantastic showman. The songs may not be deep, meaningful or fraught with some synthetic teenage-esque angst, but they are enjoyable, generation-spanning fun. It isn’t like the music industry is flooded with Tom Joneses nowadays, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but there is certainly still room for him. But anyway, I could rip an arse destroying hole through this Partridge of an article, (which can incidentally be found at http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/music/galleries/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=149239470), but as highly cathartic as it would be for me, it may be a bit boring for everyone else.


Unfortunately however, this article is just one example in a long line of shit music journalism I have encountered in the past few weeks. I do not typically frequent loads of music mags, as I feel they don’t really offer anything more than a predetermined, dull mixture of simultaneously devout criticism and brown nosing. The NME appear the worst for sure, typically offering the dawdlings of fickle, self-righteous, skinny, unsatisfying “young” men for easily influenced yet equally fickle younger men. But personally I find the yawn commencing, beard-facilitating, moaning old men of The Word, MojoUncut even worse. These time warp inducing mouldy old farts seem to find anything that doesn’t sound like it fell out of Bob Dylan or The Beatles’ backside an unfathomable load of rubbish. and


All this makes me feel quite bad. As a (essentially amateur) music critic (of sorts), I feel annoyed at the stagnancy of the music press, and their frequent inability to write well and actually about music itself. I also worry that in time I will turn into the same type of jaded bastard, with a completely discernable lack of talent, (if indeed, I am not already). Obviously any type of professional criticism is essentially down to opinion, but simply stating that something is shit purely because you don’t like it is for cheap, classless simpletons. I may express my opinion, but I always try to take an objective view of the music as my taste may not suit the target audience or target context. Take Radiohead, for example. I cannot stand Radiohead for the most part (although I must admit, I did quite like The Bends), but I can see their obvious musical ability and appeal. It would be foolish and short-sighted of me to criticise them purely on my personal feelings toward them and their music, when it obviously has significant music merit and purpose. Even their miserable bloody lyrics have value in certain depressive, melodramatic contexts.


From my perspective therefore, there are some key writing mistakes that are made by many a shit music journalist. They are as follows:


1.    Expressing opinion as fact. This is a key mistake, as critics are essentially being paid for their opinion. But unless opinion expressed as fact is done with lashings of irony, it is not cool. Don’t be an arrogant twat-bag. You and your opinion are not the fucking zenith.
2.    Confusing your dislike of the artist with how good the music is. Another cheap trick, often used by people who can’t actually write about music itself. There are a lot of doochbag musicians out there who make bloody good music, and whilst their personal opinions or antics may piss you off to high heaven, they are not their music. Certainly talk about them, as it adds an extra dimension to the writing, but do not make musicians music.
3.    Making sweeping statements without providing evidence or alternative. This is the worst and is typically done in columns. For example, there is a lot of talk in the music press about how bland music is at the moment. Personally I don’t see it, and so I am further annoyed by the fact that no explanation is given as to why the writer feels music is currently bland. Give examples, of why it is bland and what is better. Don’t just shit all over it, if something isn’t good enough don’t just complain – try and help fix it!


Ultimately I feel that the lack of proficient music critics out there is because music is a very personal thing, and one will always find it difficult to please everyone. But what we are stuck with at the moment is self-appointed popular music historians who really do think a bit too much of themselves, and take themselves too seriously, instead of people who can actually write about music. Certainly, writing about music is a very difficult thing to do, especially for a popular audience, and the inclusion of tit bits on the band in relation to the music is therefore of some importance. Magazines like The Wire discuss the music itself, for example, in a true, detailed and fascinating way, but it is also a way that is not easily navigable for your average Lily Allen fan. But there is no excuse for shit writing. Making obvious, shoddy mistakes in style, along with a weak, self-fulfilling argument just isn’t good enough anymore. The music press has been demising in sales and importance for years, probably because people are fed up of coming across typical critics; that is to say overly-disappointed, pedantic, sanctimonious, arrogant cunts. Give me job instead of them; I’m much better, I promise! X

Article: How I learned to stop worrying and love Lily Allen

Over the past few years or so, the quality of pop music in the UK has (in my humble opinion) improved dramatically. Much of this can be attributed to the influx of indie-pop crossover acts that began creeping out of the music industry’s figurative woodwork during the huge popularity of Franz Ferdinand and the Kaiser Chiefs mid decade. The pop scene has since become inundated by not only guitarists, but a variety of interesting instruments and devises that demonstrate a wonderful air of creative individuality, and a twist away from the always staid “Pete Waterman” style of pop music. Such events are incredibly refreshing for someone who grew up when the pop world was saturated by the likes of S club 7 and Boyzone, where much of the instrumentation was devised using the musical poison that is general midi. Within our new, noughties brand of quasi-pop, however, it is not just the instrumentation that has developed. There is a definite desire for talent, imagination and individualism, which is apparent in all the areas that surround music, from image to promotions to album art. This is evident with the likes of Hot Chip, The Joy Formidable and The Noisettes; a very brief but clear example of the difference between new endeavours and the manufactured style of pure pop (ala Girls Aloud, for example) that is seemingly in remission at present. 

An element of this new-new-pop that I am particularly relishing at the moment is the veritable flood of female performers within this new creative mode. It could be said that the more indie side of pop has typically disregarded female musical involvement for the past couple of decades, opting for traditional, rock derived all-male formats based on camaraderie and fraternity. At the moment however, indie pop has become almost overrun with female involvement in a manner reminiscent of the original new pop/new wave of thirty years ago. Now cool, trendy, sexy women are heavily involved in the music scene again in a creative, intelligent, aesthetically driven manner, playing instruments, fronting bands and writing songs. Women are adding a fresh, quirky twist by their mere presence as a creative entities; we are currently witnessing a joyous demise of women, intelligent or not, being utilised by the music industry as simply sexy voice boxes.

Examples of this are particularly apparent within the veritable deluge of female performers creating pop crossover acts. Over the past couple of years, the likes of Bat for Lashes, Florence and the Machine, Little Boots and Marina and the Diamonds have been creating some of the most interesting music in the charts instrumentally, but not only that, they have also demonstrated significant song writing abilities, with feisty, educated lyrics and topics. These girls get music, and evidently have a real passion, commitment to, and ability for it, but what is also noteworthy is the manner in which they present themselves. Whilst they (importantly) seem to maintain a lot of creative control, like true post-modern feminists they realise that image is still an important selling point for women. However, instead of oozing pure female sexuality that is often typical in pop music, these girls portray themselves in a way that embraces femininity in a true and loving, yet subtly ironic, sharpened manner. This is particularly well exampled by the work and nature of Lily Allen (who I now cannot help but love in spite of her often obtusely venomous attitude, especially toward poor old masculinity). This is also evident with pure pop females such as La Roux and Lady Gaga, (albeit with Roux and Gaga the talent and music is slightly more questionable than those other ladies previously mentioned).

Although this music has an obvious femininity, it maintains an edge to it that has a more broad unisex quality and appeal. It is not too girly, but simultaneously harbours a deep-seated strength that is truly feminine. They are and there are brilliantly positive examples of the female side of the race out there at present, offering female role models that have true ability, individuality and purpose. Their crossover qualities relate them to a variety of music styles, which lend them to the admirations of different tastes, although these women are mostly white, and black ladies in UK music are heavily underrepresented at present. Ultimately, however, musical women are currently at the top of their game, and are offering great role models for young women - that you can be more than just pretty. For once I am a bit envious of teenage girls; for once they have some quality to relate to.

Article: “Yeah, but they’re shit live”: why lack-lustre performances aren’t necessarily the worst thing

When discussing music, especially with musicians or musos, you often hear the above comment recited as though being a bit shit live is the ultimate musical condemnation. I myself have versed this criticism of supposed lack of talent on a number of occasions, although I must admit, it is often a cheap trick when I can’t be bothered to become involved in a more complex, informed criticism. Don’t get me wrong, being properly shit live is a right pain for the green giving audience; certainly everyone’s got the right to feel pissed off when you’ve coughed up for something special that turns out to be inferior, badly put together, broken or pissed. Additionally, the live performance can be a good marker of the actual musical ability of performers, and gives us struggling musicians something to unitedly bitch over. The Klaxons are a good example of this. When they popped up a couple of years ago, they (rather foolishly) expressed in the music press that they got together 6 months ago essentially because they felt like it, and that daddy very nicely bought them some lovely fender guitars in which to do it with. Regardless of the merit of their recorded work, it was quite satisfying to watch them completely cock up their live performances, and that they really needed to go home and practise that fret/key work just a little bit more.
Much of the slating of miscellaneous live performances is not however necessarily related to genuine shitness, musician inability or annoyance at being ripped off. From my perspective, many a “bad performance” is essentially based on a temporal lack of chemistry, either of the band or in the perceptions of the critic. There are worse things. Personally, I feel that a lack lustre album is a far greater crime than a disappointing live performance. My reasons for this are numerous. Firstly, if you want to ruminate over the monetary cost of a lost gig, the price of a CD (esp. an import or new release) is often similar to the live gig ticket price. Of course this excludes transport cost, and additionally if you will insist on paying an extortionate amount to see some pop fiasco at Wembley or the O2, well you have only yourselves to blame. But for a typical low key affair your looking at £10 - £15 quid, not that much more of an investment than a £10 CD. Secondly, you will typically intend to listen to an album perhaps hundreds of times in its various extrapolated forms over the years. Here, a far more extended, long term relationship is developed with the music, as opposed to the one-night-stand that gigs almost always are, and good albums therefore become worth their weight in gold.
Indeed, a lack lustre album is especially disappointing when your first encounter with some new talent is through an outstanding live performance. Failure to capture the magic of a group’s live work is more of a disappointment, especially when you have made a commitment to the actual purchase of a CD off the back of their live performance. The group Operator Please are good example of this. A couple of years ago, they did a fantastic live performance on Jools Holland, where true electricity and energy was evident even through the TV set. The studio album on the other hand simply failed to fully capture the young group’s veritable passion, and in fact I was so disappointed with the CD, I didn’t touch it for about 6 months. Once I had forgotten the details of the performance on Jools, I reacquainted myself with the CD, which is certainly a good album with good content. On a personal level therefore, as much of my exposure to new music occurs via the live medium (either at a gig or on the telly), if a group is smashing live but crap (or even ok) in the studio, one can be lead into disappointing, even questionable purchases that continue to clutter up my bedroom. Not cool.