Paris = Jarvis

xp

Perhaps I'll go on the Ciara thread and make snarky posts about current trends in improvised music and see how you like it.

how does it work in any conceivably rational manner?

the reason i said that is that within about two posts the paris angle had been killed and everyone was talking about morrissey again FFS, the reason for this being that nobody could add anything to the paris=jarvis comparison. there's absolutely nothing to add!

oh, and 'we love life' was ace. paris hilton has never done nor could ever do anything that could bring me such joy as that album.

(ahem)

yes.

perhaps Hilton has missed a trick by not covering 'Common People' ala Shatner.

for the first time in 5 years i should add

listen to it enough and it suddenly becomes their best album. it helps if the half you heard had 'sunrise' in it.

omg i hate shatner but i can imagine paris doing a 'stars are blind'-esque cheapo reggae cover of 'common people' which would be amazing and let's face it she is the ideal person to sing that song. well, ANY song, but especially that song.

how is this different to madonna/beyoncé/50 cent/babyshambles/xtina though?

also the ways in which paris & jarvis are celebrities is so different - jarvis is taken seriously in ways which paris will never be, even if she pwns him as an artist.

I note that Jarvis still charted four places higher than Ys though!

haha i would never have guessed that joanna newsom was half that popular!!!

I quite enjoy it when the record-buyers and the pop media (or broadsheet media trying to cover pop) are so fundamentally out of joint with one another? like how often Rachel Stevens would appear on totp/saturday morning kids' tv when those were dwindling: it was the only place she could really do promo, but her record sales didn't quite justify the presence she had. I think it's a manifestation of the same thing - this is how broadsheet media can connect to popular music, by dealing with people as Intellectual Survivor of Pop Life (jarvis) or Walking Symptom of Modern Culture (paris) -- but then it just isn't reflected by the pop markets, which don't follow those rules.

also, srsly, Just cos mans want to otm each other about how pulp are not the smiths (well done! no-one disagrees with you! have a cookie!) doesn't mean the original point doesn't stand.

xposts, obv

i also haven't noticed nearly as much press for jarvis' album as for paris'. neither in the context of this year have been that prominent anyway; joanna newsom and even My Chemical Romance have outstripped both in terms of publicity.

kind of why i listed them (as paul was talking about underperforming albums) - though cf american life for madge. also throw eminem in there too. i didn't think back to basics had underperformed though.

of course jarvis is a caricature. as much as he fights against it he'll always be to 95% of britain that funny bloke with glasses who wiggled his bum at michael jackson!

Jarvis on his own merits as a fantastic songwriter, Paris as a sort of reflexive 'Why do people pay any attention to this talentless waste of space? WHY??? Oh, whoops, we're paying her attention. Why are we paying attention to this...' vicious circle of doom. I can't make the leap!

oh, maybe he is a caricature to some (really, not as much as you say though!), but to us lot, who (hopefully) know our music, he'd be regarded as something rather more than that.

Back To Basics hasn't sold that well in the UK; there were already £4 copies going in MVE the week it went in at number one.

Thing about Rachel S is that her TV promos/interviews actually worked against the album because she came across as so blase and uninterested that the public shrugged their shoulders and wondered why they should bother. Which is a shame because Come And Get It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other album mentioned here thus far.

but doesn't this happen all the time? and is actually quite natural when you consider that a great deal of press coverage is pre-release; i don't think it was implausibly silly to think that paris and jarvis might sell quite a bit (same with rachel), and it wouldn't invalidate the coverage if it turned out that they didn't. it's like when people say "omg critics must feel so silly after jizzing over rachel's album which tanked" - well no, it's still a good album!

isn't this true of virtually all famous people or artists though? from the reference point of the wider population, most artists/celebrities/whatever will only known for one or two key moments in their career.

i can only assume this is because you are not familiar with his excellent side work as an actor - the pinnacle of which being the recent adverts for Kellogg's All Bran Bran Flakes Yoghurty.

when it comes to column inches/publicity, it doesn't matter if someone's a Personality because they're widely respected by kids shackled to old indie or a Personality because they were on a tv show that was popular in recent memory or a Personality because they're a paraplegic or a Personality because they are unquestionably a genius. All that matters is that they have a hook, any hook, to get people to read papers/maybe even buy records. Take up Lex's list of names: what sets Paris aside from them is that her previous fame contained no music career. But none of those are famous just for music: they're also famous for all this external stuff, for drugs and divaisms and who knows what else.

Throw the words around a bit and the answer would be: any dick if it's attached to a camera.

I ask you for the second time: why do you hang around threads which you don't like?

OMM did a pretty miserable job of hyping Cocker in the last-but-one issue.