Pussy Riot

A Russian all-female punk rock group by the name of Pussy Riot recently made headlines around the world when they were arrested and subsequently sentenced to two years in jail for participating in a protest against Russian president Vladimir Putin armed with guitars and drums. The trio, dawning different colored balaclavas on each of their heads, performed a rendition of what they later referred to as “Punk Prayer” in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. “Virgin Mary, Mother of God, banish Putin, banish Putin/Virgin Mary, Mother of God, banish him, we pray thee!” While the performance met vehement opposition from Russian government the global response was somewhat different. The Pussy Riot tale made headlines daily in the United States and Britain gaining support for the group from such iconic figures as Paul McCartney, Sting, Yoko Ono, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. An HBO produced documentary on the subject is even in the works and received a prestigious Sundance release. So, with the worldwide interest being so strong you'd imagine the charges against Pussy Riot would have been dropped somewhere along the line. But no, only one of the three Pussy Riot players was allowed to walk free, simply because she had been unable to remove her instrument during the proceedings. These facts are proof that while the media can harbor a powerful movement, often the significance of a headline is only so much in comparison to governmental institution. As much as we may like to believe that reading about Pussy Riot every day as we browse the web everyday will ultimately lead to their liberation, we must realize that the power to change the world is not solely in the word count.

This is not to say that the constant media coverage of the case didn't have certain beneficial results. If anything the stories were effective in highlighting the truly unjust rulings of tyrant, Vladimir Putin. While educating ourselves on the Pussy Riot trials did not lead to dismissal of the case, their actions had the intended results. They raised awareness of a pressing human rights and foreign affairs issue. Coverage of such a story on entertainment sites and political sites creates a junction between multiple powerful agents. The unorthodox manner by which the trio chose to riot sparked the media frenzy and their role as women in the music industry, women in Russia, and women in arms were enough strike everyone's attention and hold it for months to come. Two of the members of Pussy Riot sit in prison today, but their story is still ever present in working minds around the world, as a globalized world rallies around such issues and keeps them prevalent. 

!2-12-12

Rumors of a Nirvana reunion headed by Sir Paul McCartney had taken the Internet by storm in an anticipation of the Hurricane Sandy Benefit Concert to be staged at New York’s Madison Square Garden. It was 12-12-12 and Macca was expected to take the stage following a superstar lineup featuring Bruce Springsteen, Bon Jovi, The Rolling Stones, Kanye West, an unexpected duet between Coldplay’s Chris Martin and REM’s Michael Stipe, and numerous other world-renowned acts. A month earlier Hurricane Sandy had devastated thousands of Americans along the East Coast and the concert was a much needed relief effort. Notably, half of the dozen or so acts performing at the concert were in fact not American, but mainly hailing from Great Britain.

So, to take a step back for a moment, there was more than one moment of significance being generated on stage on 12-12-12. For starters, a wide variety of world-class acts came together to raise money for Hurricane Sandy, including a band that is apparently difficult to book, The Rolling Stones (though they only privileged the audience two songs). Alongside The Rolling Stones were five other artists who do not originally hail from the United States. Is this a sign that patriotism is waning and the concert organizers had to outsource jobs to international acts, or is there just resounding sense of support from non-Americans for the East Coast (more specifically New York City)? As Mick Jagger put it, "This has got to be the biggest collection of old English musicians ever in Madison Square Garden. If it ever rains in London, you've got to come help us." And, this raises another interesting point, while Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on much of the East Coast, why does it seem that there was only support being shown for New York. Yes, it is convenient enough that Madison Square Garden, a long-celebrated arena that has been host to a myriad of notable performers, is in fact in New York City, but what if the show had taken place in West Virginia, or Maine? Would there have been the same outpouring of support? Surely, The Rolling Stones, or The Who, or Billy Joel, a recluse in recent years, wouldn’t have come out for a show at WesBanco Arena in Wheeling, West Virginia. As the proceeds from the event went solely towards relief efforts, obviously it’s difficult to argue against the marketing of the show. I, personally, being an American, but not being of the East Coast, would say that I relate more with New York City than any other city of note in the East. It’s not because I’ve spent a lot of time there, or necessarily spent less time anywhere else on the coast, but it’s because New York City is a symbol of the United States. You heard it when Billy Joel sang his “New York State of Mind” and Alicia Keys closed the show with her own “Empire State of Mind” and the crowd rejoiced. And Paul’s choice to play “Helter Skelter” was eerily reminiscent of his Grammy Award winning performance of the song on his 2009 live album Good Evening New York City.

Despite the glaring peculiarities of the entire show, the concert still earned an estimated $30 million for Hurricane Sandy relief and generated a memorable moment in time.

The Rise and Fall... And Rise Again? of Patrick Stump

Patrick Stump was on top of the world. At 24 Stump's pop punk outfit, Fall Out Boy already had two platinum records, a slew of hit songs on the modern rock circuit, and an ever-growing fan base. He had also lent his hand to such successful commercial bands as Cobra Starship and Gym Class Heroes in producing and co-writing tracks. What could have gone wrong? In 2009 the group disbanded in pursuit of other musical ventures, Stump's being an indulgent solo album. Soul Punk was released in 2011 along with a new, thinner Stump. The album truly was a solo effort as the former drummer turned frontman manned all instrumentation and production tasks. The project allowed Stump to flex his ethnomusicologist skills as he sampled from a variety of different genres and influences (Stump is most notably a Michael Jackson fanatic). The expected result would be an overwhelming support from both the music community and Stump's acquired fan base, but it seems the outcome was quite the opposite. Though Soul Punk initially received positive reviews, the album only went on to sell 23,000 copies in the United States and ultimately prompted Stump to post to his blog an emotional letter in which at one point he quips, "It's tempting to say I won't ever play/tour/record again..." In the letter the refined singer proceeds to explain the amount of negative reception he's experienced around Fall Out Boy's last album and the solo effort, particularly fans denouncing his change in musical direction and stating a clear preference towards the singer when he was "fat."
So who is to blame for the demise of Stump's popularity amongst fans. An evermore timid and particular audience vehemently opposes evolution in an artist. This is a clear sign about the current state of the music industry. It's not about the music. It is not about the art. It is about what sells. In the beginning, Stump and Fall Out Boy produced a certain aesthetic that captivated fans. That singular sound fit cookie cutter mold of what pop music was at the moment, and as the band began to evolve, their pop/rock constituency did not. Stump's case is proof that fame does not guarantee longevity and though he poured his heart and soul into Soul Punk it seemed his fifteen minutes were up...
Or were they? A month ago Fall Out Boy surprised everyone as they announced a new album, released lead single "My Songs Know What You Did in the Dark," and plotted an North American tour to be played in moderately small venues. The single already receives consistent airplay on modern rock stations and much of the tour sold out immediately. Fall Out Boy bassist Pete Wentz even went so far as to admit, "We didn't think anyone would care." Goes to show the power of a moniker. On the success of Fall Out Boy's upcoming release? Time will tell.

Both Sides of the Story

Politics are messy.What's even messier? The media attempting to portray politics. The extremes of both conservatives and liberals are constantly glorified in the news to rile up both sides, create controversy, and ultimately gain a wider audience for just such cases. Both conservative and liberal publications are to blame for these discrepancies, but how exactly are these views demonstrated? To answer this question and further investigate the idea of prostituting politics I plan on researching articles on polarizing political issues within our country from news sites on both sides of the spectrum to better understand the phenomenon.

The first issue I look into is that of election night, and Obama's victory. The headline from liberal CNN, "Obama takes key battlegrounds to win re-election."And from their conservative competitor Fox News, "Obama defeats Romney to win second term, vows he has 'more work to do.'" Now as I interpret it, CNN takes the position of a modest supporter following victory, and Fox News takes the position that Obama has won the battle, but he has not won the war (for lack of a better phrase). As I read through the articles I find that CNN spends most of their words talking about Obama's sweeping victory and the fact that he was able to take swing states and demographics that Romney was unable to. The brief portion of the article pertaining to Romney briefly touches on his conciliation speech and then proceeds to harshly critique the shortcomings of the republican party. It then predicts that the democrats will hold they house. They did not. 

As for the article from Fox News, after a brief introduction paragraph the first quote from Obama saying, "We've got more work to do." Not allowing the democrats any time to revel in their victory the article labels the campaign "one of the nastiest political battles and gridlocked terms in modern American history." The article then goes on to speak of just how close the race was and despite Obama's large margin of victory in electoral votes how tight the popular vote was. The article also takes a jab at Obama asserting that extra time and money spent in swing states had won him the vote and that "Obama sought to cast Romney -- even before he was nominated -- as an elite, tax-dodging, corporate champion."

Ultimately what I gained from these two opposing articles was that both will act maliciously in times of strong debate, the victor often more subtle, and the loser often more bitter. But both sides still buy into the same age-old belief that right and wrong is black and white, especially in politics, and at the end of the day there never really is a winner. The goal of any political agent in the media is to represent its audience as well as it can, but the eventual result is audiences made by the media, rather than the other way around.