Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The realities of being a pop star

itscharlibb.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 249 posts

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#141

Post by thaumasiotes »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #41
astrange wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a weird assumption people make that somebody as successful as Charli XCX isn't smart because her persona is "I like cocaine and partying," Considering cocaine is both illegal and has an obviously unethical supply chain, you'd think someone would try, you know, prosecuting her or something.

I wonder if I'm missing some sarcasm, but I feel I need to clarify that "I like cocaine and partying" is her _persona_, it isn't necessarily true. It's largely marketing. I feel this was the main point of the article, lol.

Well, the first major point she makes is that she really loves partying.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#142

Post by mettamage »

abc123abc123 wrote: post #139
WalterBright wrote: post #54

> especially when your old friends mock and ridicule you for caring about something absolutely pointless. My dad flew 32 missions over Germany. He watched men die. 80% of his cohort did not return. He expected to die and made his peace with it. He told me once that when he returned home, he was struck by the trivial problems people had and obsessed over. After all, they weren't flying a mission tomorrow with near cer…

I always feel like this is elitist (oh, look at your silly little problem, I risked death, and you are complaining about rent. And I always respond with, yes, not everyone risked death, and they do have a right to complain about rent. You did it because of your own free choice. Another aspect of this silly stance is that if we always compare with death, nothing ever gets done. It is perfectly reasonable to have every…

Well yea sure. But also look at death though. What does any uncomfortable thing mean in the face of death?

Not much. And this is coming from someone who hasn’t voluntarily faced death or consciously experienced the threat of it.

I respect both views. I guess it takes some Janusian thinking skills [1], for me at least, but both perspectives are worth it.

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/creative-exploration...

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#143

Post by MomsAVoxell »

I’ve known many pop stars (have worked in the pro audio industry for decades) and one thing that is common among them is that they are very interesting people. Very rarely interested - mostly involved in being interesting.

I think there has to be a balance, personally. If you spend your life trying to be as interesting as possible, it gets very spiritually depleting. If you do take an honest interest in others, though, the pop-star factor gets multiplied.

So many times I’ve seen fans congregate around a star, struck as they were, to be regaled with that stars new interesting thing, or entertaining acts. Sure, they walk away with the experience. But, whenever the pop star turns it around and takes more of an interest in the other person - wow! The fan factor multiplies significantly. (Incidentally, this works not just for pop stars but also anyone at all, actually.)

That said, I don’t think being a pop star is a particularly healthy activity. The exhaustion levels once the green room door is closed are pretty obvious, and the means of healing from weeks, or months and months of continuous, daily, “being interesting” takes a huge toll.

The pop stars I’ve known, intimately, who have a strong family that just treat them like regular people, are usually the healthiest. The few stars I consider friends, as in we could call each other just to hang out and chat now and then, are really the ones who find this balance early in their life.

I also have a somewhat famous actress in my family, and she is an extremely tiring person to be around, even though she has millions of adoring fans, because there is a continual vibe of being as interesting as possible, no matter the circumstances, and this is exhausting for those of us who live with her on a regular basis. Inter-family gossip always takes note of her attention levels.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#144

Post by dbspin »

While this is a fascinating perspective, I find this analysis of the source of hate online to be under-examined and self serving.

Sure, any public figure will be the target of hatred, negative projection, ridicule. And doubtless that's doubly true for female celebrities. But much of this is driven by envy - envy fuelled by the gilded age level of inequality we're currently experiencing. By the performative nature of conspicuous consumption by pop stars. By their ubiquity and elevation to celestial rather than mere celebrity status.

There's another factor she fails to recognise. Charlie XCX's music is woeful. 'Pop' in the sense of ephemeral, unoriginal, commercial, rather than merely popular. That, combined with her pretension to art makes her vast wealth and celebrity irksome in a way that the success of more original, avant garde or obviously 'artistic' musicians from David Bowie to Imogen Heap is not.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#145

Post by MomsAVoxell »

decimalenough wrote: post #128
bigiain wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know how it's said that eskimos have 50 words for "snow"? Aussies have 50 meanings for the word "cunt". It can simultaneously be both the worst and the best thing you can call someone. And aussies know exactly which meaning is intended from context.

It's easier than that, the meaning is defined by the previous word. Although you do have to be an Aussie to know that being called a "sick cunt" is high praise, while being a "dog cunt" is a mortal insult.

It also depends on how long you stretch the word cunt. Shorter cunt usually infers insult, longer cunts belie respect, and if it goes for more than a second, you’re probably watching Aussie rules footie or the cricket and something bad/good happened, depending on whether the pitch goes up or down in the last milliseconds.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#146

Post by jameslk »

bigmealbigmeal wrote: post #132
ivraatiems wrote: post #21

There is a weird assumption people make that somebody as successful as Charli XCX isn't smart because her persona is "I like cocaine and partying," and then are surprised when she can express herself like this. Like she says: "Another thing about being a pop star is that you cannot avoid the fact that some people are simply determined to prove that you are stupid." Making music at any professional level is extremely…

What you're saying is a very common "poptimist" trope of the last decade or two. To say that, actually, these vocalists are highly intelligent and largely responsible for their own success. Charli XCX, like nearly all popstars, was propped up by the producers and writers who shaped her sound and composed large parts of the music. Producers have been there the whole way. In particular, her blowing up was highly influe…

> In particular, her blowing up was highly influenced by the stylistic direction, composition, production and sound engineering of people associated with the PC Music record label.

No, if anything Charli XCX was the one that put PC Music on the map. She has been a fairly big name since 2012

> she was around artistic innovators like Sophie, yes, but THEY are the ones that pioneered the sound.

Sophie didn’t pioneer the sound of PC Music any more than e.g. AG Cook, QT, Hannah Diamond, Danny L Harle, 100 gecs, or any of the other many artists involved, including Charli XCX

You’re talking as if PC Music is some huge label with a lot of help, when it’s mostly just AG Cook. He and Charli XCX collaborated on tracks for a couple of Charli’s albums

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#147

Post by fyltr »

bigiain wrote: post #74
bombcar wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aussies speak something that sounds vaguely like English but it ain’t.

You know how it's said that eskimos have 50 words for "snow"? Aussies have 50 meanings for the word "cunt". It can simultaneously be both the worst and the best thing you can call someone. And aussies know exactly which meaning is intended from context.

For the record, eskimo is a derrogatory term meaning "raw meat eater". The term Inuit is nowadays preferred.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#148

Post by bigmealbigmeal »

ad_hockey wrote: post #140
bigmealbigmeal wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying is a very common "poptimist" trope of the last decade or two. To say that, actually, these vocalists are highly intelligent and largely responsible for their own success. Charli XCX, like nearly all popstars, was propped up by the producers and writers who shaped her sound and composed large parts of the music. Producers have been there the whole way. In particular, her blowing up was highly influe…

> The most common refrain is that popstars often write their music. This is misleading: they write the lyrics, suggest a general vibe, and some rough melodies or chords. And even this is a stretch many times. They are not composing or producing the music in any larger sense, and this is the pivotal part of actually making music. To be fair, if they write the lyrics, define the vibe/feel of the song, and compose the m…

The operative word was "rough". They give a few hints; they're not painstakingly mapping out the melodies and chords for every instrument and determining what those instruments are, and how they sound.

If you're writing for a guitar and voice, then you've basically got a song, but pop music is built on sometimes hundreds of different instruments and effects.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#149

Post by bigmealbigmeal »

jameslk wrote: post #146
bigmealbigmeal wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying is a very common "poptimist" trope of the last decade or two. To say that, actually, these vocalists are highly intelligent and largely responsible for their own success. Charli XCX, like nearly all popstars, was propped up by the producers and writers who shaped her sound and composed large parts of the music. Producers have been there the whole way. In particular, her blowing up was highly influe…

> In particular, her blowing up was highly influenced by the stylistic direction, composition, production and sound engineering of people associated with the PC Music record label. No, if anything Charli XCX was the one that put PC Music on the map. She has been a fairly big name since 2012 > she was around artistic innovators like Sophie, yes, but THEY are the ones that pioneered the sound. Sophie didn’t pioneer the…

Charli XCX was around before PC Music, but the sound she is known for and became famous for originated from PC Music. The fact that she delivered a bit of "minor popstar" cred to them is fine, but the key to my point is that they determined the sound that made her iconic.

Sophie was an example. I didn't see it necessary to talk about all the artists involved in PC Music to make the point that the producers on the label pioneered the sound.

Look at the credits for her albums. She had producers and writers credited on every single song. This IS a lot of help. You're acting like she just did a couple of collabs with AG Cook and that's it. She had many different people helping her on the actual composition and production of every single song.

This is the point being refuted -- that the popstars are geniuses responsible for carrying the burden of their rise. It's mythology. The reality is that they bring performance skills and charisma to the table, some non-awful lyrical skill, and then the lion's share of actually making the music work is done by producers and writers. They would be nowhere without the producers. The producers would be nowhere without the popstars. But it's the most common poptimist mistake to confuse the popstar's charisma for the producer's mastery.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#150

Post by bdangubic »

chickensong wrote: post #121
bdangubic wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what qualification does one need to be US President (besides being born in the US and of certain age)? celebrities certainly won’t be doing any open heart surgeries anytime soon :) so there are things you absolutely do not need any qualitications for (Actor/Actress, US President) and there those you do (Surgeon, Attorney…)

You need to be rich and well connected.

Obama was neither
Post reply on HN