More like this
Music piracy: Lily Allen is a government lackey
When was the last time we saw a pop star doing anything remotely rebellious?
In the debate about the Government's woolly plans to prevent illegal file-sharing, Lily Allen has revealed her true colours. By backing Lord Mandelson's "get tough" line, she has shown that, like her father, Keith, she's a pampered lovey in chav's clothing. When it comes to getting paid, all her pretence of rebellion - the farting around, writing rude songs about sex - goes out of the French windows alongside her latest unsatisfactory, inconsiderate boyfriend.
Not that's she's been fooling anyone anyway. Her song Fuck You was once supposed to be about George W Bush, until she recently announced it was about the BNP. Now it appears to be directed at all of us (well, those of us who dare to download her album without paying for it). Yeah, fuck you, where's my money?
Allen's form of rebellion – which is basically as rebellious as walking up a down escalator – is endemic of 2009 pop music as a whole. Rebellion stopped being actual rebellion decades ago. Now, it's just another suit of clothes to put on in Mr Benn's pop star Dressing Room.
Try to think of a pop artist or rock star who has done something vaguely rebellious in recent times - put their necks on the line for a cause, risked their career and public humiliation to make a point. Anyone?
The world of pop has gone too nice. I want pop stars to revolt meOr how about a pop star who's gone completely against the tide of society to be a freak and rub our noses in it? Someone whose very existence could make the Mirror's friend of the stars Gordon Smart bleed tears of disgust? Someone your mum would tut about in revulsion if she heard you listening to them. Or someone who would cause your dad to switch over if they accidentally appeared on Top Gear. Anyone?
The world of pop has gone too nice. I want pop stars to revolt me (or at least revolt my dad) in ways other than being too nice.
Perhaps the problem is that the over-indulgences (drink, drugs, sex) that once constituted rebellious behaviour are now commonplace and accepted. We don't think of Pete Doherty, Amy Winehouse or Eminem as rebels - we think of them as victims of fame. Outrageous dressing – such as Lady Gaga's many MTV outfits or Shakira's alarming leotards – is just part of the entertainment.
As for so-called political artists like Green Day, how political are they really? ("Don't want to be an American Idiot"? Don't be then.) None of their songs actually says anything at all. They may have stolen The Clash's sound, clothes and hair but, compared to Joe Strummer, Billie Joe Armstrong is as rebellious as Paddington Bear.
When it comes to artists who use their fame to forward a political, environmental or social cause, today they have become diplomats rather than freedom fighters. Bono, Chris Martin, Jay-Z - they'd rather have tea and scones with Kofi Annan (or breakfast with Peter Mandelson) and get "my people to meet your people" than fight or march or shout or mobilise the people who believe in them. They'd rather stick a little logo in the corner of the album artwork than actually tell the world what they believe in. Yeah, write 'Make Trade Fair' on your hand - that'll change things.
I don't expect music to be political (God forbid) or every pop star to be a rebel or angry or opinionated. Neither do I expect them to be mounting the barricades and leading an army of disgruntled youth incensed about price rises at Starbucks .
It is just a shame that the one issue that does ignite people like Lily Allen is the one that concerns their own personal fortune – and, in this case, one in which she has taken the side of the establishment. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
So she's not rebellious; who cares? What is this - the school playground?
File sharing costs nobody anything, the downloaders [and by the way I'm not one] wouldn't or couldn't pay the extortionate prices still being charged for CDs [and they're cheaper now as a result of file sharing scaring the bread heads, they used to be around 14 pounds a bit of plastic], so what we have is people listening to music without having paid some fat cat for the privilege. Woow, naughty. Question: What's the difference between downloading some tracks and listening to them, and listening to them on Youtube without downloading them? Very little since the tracks have to download from Youtube in order for you to listen to them, they just aren't saved on your hard disc. People who get all agitated about this are just finding it hard to cope with change; from the old way of getting bits of plastic from a shop, to spooling over the net. The music industry, packed with the obscenely rich who thought they had a license to remain so with little effort, is slowly adapting and many artists deal directly with those who like their music without the middle-fat-men taking a cut. Often this entails free downloading, and it can lead to sales as well once they are known. Question: If I own the vinyl LP, am I breaking a law by recording it onto my hard drive to listen to while I work? If not, what's the difference between that and downloading it if I lack the equipment to record it to hard disc? I own the album, do I not own copies also that enable me to listen in different situations? This is all about the rich staying rich, and yes, I do think they're fair game, it's all got by extortion by an industry which has had it easy living off talent. Usually, the economics of scale mean consumer products become cheaper - viz computers which once cost over 1000 now cost 200. Have records similarly reduced? How much does a piece of plastic cost?
I lost respect for this woman when she decided to sue an Australian designer who had the nerve to go into business using the name Lilly Allen. The fact that this was the name she was given at birth did not seem to faze Allen or her legal people at all. Then when, during an interview in Aus., her manager thought the questions were getting too close to this subject he just pulled the plug. She is not only a government lackey she is also the tool of her own corporate entity.
Well, m'Lud, before you come to sentencing me for the theft of the frozen chicken, two Premium garlic-breads and a rhubarb yoghurt, I want to say this in my defence...
... Lord Sainsbury is already a very rich man! An' he comes from a rich family of nobs an' all. An' he doesn't really need the money. Putting those goods on display was just asking to have them illegally downloaded, wasn't it? So I refer you to the case of Peter Simmons Vs Lily Allen, in which it was successfully proved that you're allowed to burgle well-known people who've got a bit of dosh, because the normal law doesn't apply. Nick all you like, provided your victims are successful people. That's what I said when I stole the airplane - that Richard Branson's got loads of 'em, he wouldn't miss one what wiv all his millions, eh?
Just re-read the article and realised it's more about having a go at Lily and wishing Punk/Shock Rock would make a comeback. Personally I don't really care what artists get up to as long as they continue to produce great music.
The author was just making light of illegal file sharing as if it was a lifestyle choice like collecting stamps. I'd rather compare it to stealing stationary at work but on a huge scale costing thousands of pounds
I agree with Tony and Hamy's views above. I'm not that bothered about Lily Allen to get hot under the collar about if she deserves her status or not. But I do agree with her views on file sharing.
To the point and accurate. Allen, privileged offspring of a luvvy, has greed and nothing much else. Or could it be that having shared her muzac on Facebook in order to get noticed, she now wants people to pay her for her insubstantial warblings? Give it five years and people will be saying 'Lilly who?' She'll be married to a record producer, living in Finchley and have spoiled brats of her own, who grandad Keith will entertain with his hardened gangster impressions.
But these artists like Lily are rebelling. It's just that they are rebelling against tight wads like you Johnny and you don't like it because it might mean you have to start paying for music like you used to before illegal file sharing!
There's a point there being made and there's one being missed. Don't forget that stars/artists are people first. The fact that they make music/art/entertainment is second to the fact that they live and breathe as people and will only be who they are. If you are looking for another Alice Cooper, Iggy Pop then you just have to wait. I agree the recent crop of rebels would be hard pressed to compete with the icons of the seventies, but hey... protest is a much more complex and sophisticated affair than it was back in the day. The results are also ineffectual due to the broad scope of practically everything these days. Are you surprised no-one wants to be bothered with it? I think the next revolution will have no leaders... instead there will be a huge crowd of people who will have genuinely had enough. Governments will try to make it an electoral issue, but that probably wont satisfy. As for leaders? In time, the people will turn en mass, but for now... while there's money in their pockets there will be peace on stage. All this kind of speech making is about the celebrity pecking order...
The problem here is her headline grabbing status. The music industry in the form of UK Music supported by MPG, PPL, PRS, BASCA, FAC, MU and led by Feargal Sharkey is presenting a consistent and coherent response to the government plans and actually Ms Allen's contribution doesn't add up to much in the face of such unanimity.
This is an important issue to our music industry and needs to be handled in an adult fashion. A large part of the problem, if not caused by was most certainly fueled by, the news giants using free cover discs and free content to sell their newspapers. It didn't work for them and now we see Mr Murdoch doing a complete about face, dumping his free newspapers and charging for online news.
Perhaps they could now use their influence to educate the public that music does indeed have value and those of us working away in the background deserve to be able to pay our mortgages too!
But ask Johnny Dee to work for nothing and have other people nick his work and use it for free... and then you'll hear the whelps start!! What a sad media onanist....