Hey,
I just wanted to give you a major kudos for your spot on review of Hard Candy.  I've had the record for about a week now and plan to review it this weekend.  I've been listening to it on my DJ headphones for a week now and am blown away.  Like you, I really do not like 4 Minutes and deleted it from my iPod as well.  I think some of this album borders on brilliant and it's the best sequel she could have made to her first record.  I, too, was a bit disappointed by how Confessions never really achieved what it set out to do.  It was a very generic album.  I think this is some of her best work.  Also like you, I thought American Life was a great record -- minus the title track.  I still can't get songs like "Nothing Fails" & "Intervention" out of my mind.  I'm pretty much obsessed with the song "Incredible" and have sweet candy dreams about her performing it live on some awards show with Gwen Stefani.  :)  (It doesn't sound like it, but it's transitions remind me of  Gwen's "Fluorescent.)  Anyway, you really nailed this one on the head.  If Confessions was Future Disco, this is Disco Funk Super Pop.  My review will probably go up on Sunday on www.wherethereswil.blogspot.com .  Your review is so close to what I'll be saying, I almost just posted a link to yours, but that would let my readers down.

Peace.

 

Thanks, Will!

 

Cheers,

Aaron 

I am a journalist and writer, and as a longtime Madonna fan (since Burning Up), I have been reading every review of Hard Candy out there. Yours is simply the most intelligent and introspective piece I've seen. Great job!!!

I linked to your blog from my site, Urraca, at http://cesartorres.net/blog/?p=91 . My site is mostly about books and writing, though occasionally I cover music. Thanks again!

C

 

Hi,

 

Thanks! Yes, I've been listening to it, for the past couple of days; my review pretty much stands, now that I've come to know it (sometimes, you review something quickly, and then you end up disagreeing with your own review, once you've come to know the work better). I've never much discussed Madge, here, til recently, but I will no doubt always have a soft spot her, regardless of where she takes things (the great thing with Madonna is that if you don't like it, you know it will change again, next album). I do miss the American Life period, I wish she would have continued on a more personally tuned in kind of creative path - the one that she had gone down, since Erotica, through to the (apex of Madonna's career, creatively) American Life album. But this one is a lot of fun, and has those few moments that are certainly up there (a few days in now, and I still think Voices is the killer track from this one; it actually reminds me of the Erotica period). It's a shame that when it first leaked online, people were not hearing this song (the last half of this album is much better, in my opinion, than the first). The first seven songs were leaked, but the better ones come after this. And all those commercial reviews - whether they're saying nice or horrible things - they're so ridiculous, because if you actually go to the listening parties, you'll know that nobody is really listening, anyway. They are all littered with so many mistakes, but these people think they can then pass final mjudgement, it annoys me. I thankfully got to take the album home with me, so I could really get into it, and dissect it. You're not meant to listen to these records, for the first time, with a cocktail in your hand, in the boardroom of a record company with 50 other wankers who are more worried about what bigwigs are there, than really listening to the album.

 

I still, however, continue to ignore 4 Minutes! I guess it did work, because she got the American hit she (let's be honest) wanted so badly, and it was the cheap way out of getting that, quite frankly. But it's not remotely indicative of the rest of it, and I wish she hadn't have done this, and certainly not releaseed it as the lead single. The second single, Give It 2 Me - even though it's still basically a mindless dancefloor pop single - is much, much stronger. Here's hoping that she's now got the American hit she wanted, and goes back to making records without having to appease that country's market. To me, she's really an interesting cultural symbol, because she went from being so quintessentially American, to - thanks to America changing, not just her - becoming more European. I prefer her being a real artist, and America - even if she's making hits, there - will always see her as the outrageous sex symbol. I think that cheapens her, unnecessarily, these days. 

 

I'm also hoping she divorces Guy Ritchie.  

 

And I'll certainly come and drop in on your blog and have a read through! 

 

Thanks again,

Aaron 

 

Hi Steph,

 

My goodness! You are writing essays at uni, aren't you? I love the way you referenced my article there - beautifully done! Your teachers would be proud!

 

And thankyou very much for your lovely comments. As many know, I do struggle with time, when it comes to my blogging. I'm a busy boy who juggles far too many plates. But one thing I originally wanted to do on this site was have a section devoted to following and dissecting advertising campaigns. You hit the nail on the head, when you mentioned that the problem is really just awareness. I don't think you're in any way unique - and, quite frankly, I'm not really that unique because, yes, I work in the bloody industry, so yes, I get what's going on! Advertising is all a trick, really. It's just magic. It's not real - it's designed to fool you. But it's intelligently designed, yes. When I create an ad, I'm not in any way free to just let my imagination run wild (this is why I said in the previous letter that, ultimately, I don't consider what I do to adequately satisfy my creativity. I really do see the fact that I'm also a psychotherapist (that side of me) is more connected to my work in marketing, in so many ways. 

 

The thing is, if you understand the trickery, it can't trick you. And that's a matter of education, of course. So, yes, I definitely value my role here, in some tiny way, as educating people on the tricks of that particular trade. Once you change people's mindset, they take that with them to every ad break, if you know what I mean. You can start to free yourself of the consumer mindset - something very much under-rated in contemporary society. It defines our society, in so many ways. We even digest our politics, our entire experiences, from this perspective. You can't underestimate it.

 

So I'm kinda like the Doctor Jekyl and Mr Hide of advertising and marketing. Clever businessman in the day; rebel bohemian at night! Thankfully, I recently changed my working life, and have become a freelancer, so I've got the balance more in my favour, now. It's not an industry I encourage people to go into, lightly - I probably should have made that clearer, when I so frivolously answered D's letter! But, you know, we have to pay our bills, at the end of the day - it sux, but it just is. This website absolves my sin. Doesn't it? ;)

 

Cheers,

Aaron 

 

 

Hi D,

 

A Copywriter is basically the person who writes commercial "copy" (or any text). In the industry, you call any written content "copy" (whether it's an article, or the slogan for an ad, or the "about us" section on a website, etc). I make my money off advertising copywriting. So, when you're standing in the bank line, reading the silly text on their posters and brochures, that could be me you're actually reading! 

 

It develops, for some, into writing the ads, conceptually. The advertising and creative marketing industry is basically made up of designers and copywriters, and the good ones from either can become what's called Creative Director (what I've done mostly, for the past four years), where you're not just writing your little bit, but coming up with the whole ad or campaign, etc.  So, I'll still write the copy, but I've also written the entire ad, and then had my designers create it for me.

 

Really, it's just a great way, if you're a writer, of making a living using your skills. It has almost no creative satisfaction, of course. Not for me, anyway (but some people buy into the corporate lifestyle and actually connect to what they're doing - I'm not one of those!) . The harsh reality is that it's very hard to make money from "real" writing. So you'll find writers tend to end up in various commercial writing avenues - some go into journalism (an industry I'm not really a fan of), but some, like me, end up writing ads and marketing material. That was fairly natural for me, in some rather ironic ways, because I understood the psychology of marketing, so why I have really excelled isn't so much because of my writing ability (though you have to have that, too, of course), but because my copy and campaigns have a great sense of marketing psychology. Not every writer has that - but it's what you'll need, if you want to be a successful copywriter. It's really about understanding what your writing needs to be "doing", in terms of essentially manipulating consumers into reacting a certain way (and, of course, ultimately buying the product). 

 

For me, I like it, because even though I'm not in any way creatively sincere, as such, it's still creative in "some" way - more than other careers, of course - and because writing is so natural to me, I don't feel the work hours drag by, like I do when doing other things for a living. So, if you're a writer and sick of being a struggling, poor artiste, maybe it's something worth considering. There's some universities starting to incorporate it, but the best bet is to try to get into the AWARDS course, which is solely training you to be a copywriter in a commercial agency setting.

 

Hope that helps!

 

Aaron 

 

 

Hi Brad,

 

Yes, as a youngin', I wrote many essays at uni about Madonna, so it was a bit of a blast from the past for me, writing that! And I've got a huge collection of pics, because it was the imagery that was discussed, of course. I remember in the early 90's, there was even a university in America that offered a degree specialisation on Madonna. But now pop culture has left the realm of academia and philosophy, really, it's a different era for that, as I alluded to in the previous letter. Fifteen years ago, this website would have been a given, but now there are those who ask, "Why does he waste his time dissecting popular culture?"

 

Anyway, I had a lot of fun, choosing the pics. I had a spliff and went through photos upon photos, doing them up in photoshop. I did a few more, and then picked which ones to put in the article. So, if it's any interest to you, then, I thought I'd put these up, these were some others that never made it beyond my photoshopping!

 

But if you want any pics in good quality (is that what you're actually asking, in a round about kind of way?!), just let me know - I can email them to you, no problems.  

 

Cheers,

Aaron

 

 

 

Hi Kathryn,

 

Thanks so much - a big nod and a wink, from one early 90's communications student to another ;) And you're so right, it's changed so much. I went back to university in 2002 (not for communications, though, for psychology), and was astounded when I finally did some work in the communications faculty, how much it had changed from our time. I think academia, in general, was very different. For a number of reasons. But our time was one of self-indulgence, of intellect for the sake of intellect. I think we were lucky (or were we actually dysfunctionalised, socially?), because now uni has been changed by the era of empiricism (a very different way of viewing the role of the academic, intellectually) that has affected even non-scientific faculties.

 

It's also due to Howard, too. Uni has become a factory for worker bees; there's no economic room, now, for anything else. Communications is now completely based around this; you don't get away with writing essays on what Madonna means to you, anymore, that's for sure. It's all broadcast policy, and there's very little creativity, because it's seen as anti-commercial and useless. And because of the funding wars, the humanities is completely dying, and so too it's general intellectual perspective, as even these faculties try to look like they have the attributes to warrant funding (which means they sort of betrays themselves, in doing so). Sigh.... At least we got to be shaped by that old world of it all.

 

Thanks again,

Aaron 

 

 

Hi Sorina,

 

Thankyou, yes, I'm looking forward to it, too. Yes, that is me on the playing card - if only I was a burnt out red and black image in real life! Alas, I'm not.

 

I enjoyed the interview, and was happy that it would give readers a different edge. As to using the format for here, I'm not so sure, but there will probably be more at some stage, in the future. I will be doing some more, I think, about Unreal. I'm also lining up some interviews for the new Eye On Big Brother. But just worrying about EOBB and Unreal, at the moment, so no new major format changes to here, just yet. But thanks for the feedback, and the support, much appreciated, it's good to hear.

 

Thanks,

Aaron 

 

Hi Jeremy,

I don't know too much about it, admittedly, but I from what I do know, I'm a little skeptical (as much as I hate saying that). Originally, I thought it seemed a great idea, because I thought they were indeed going to bring some intellect into the mix. But from what I've seen, instead of academics and great thinkers (of which, there are many, in this country, it must be said), I saw that the headliners are James packer and Hugh Jackman! That's a shame. Of course, it may be a bit of both - I'm sure there are some genuine thinkers in there, too - but with these clear PR stunt placements, it means that whatever is actually said by the "real" thinkers in this summit, will now be completely overlooked, as the media discusses what Packer thinks should be done (which doesn't take a genius to figure out), and what Hugh Jackman was wearing. At very least, I was hoping there'd be minimal corporate presence, but perhaps that won't be the case. Not good, so far, in my opinion. But, we'll wait and see.

 

Thanks,

Aaron 

 

 

Hi Catherine,

 

Yes, it will definitely be happening, this year. I've been working on it for the past few days, actually (one of the reasons why I didn't get round to answering your email sooner, sorry), and am rather pleased with how it's coming along. I've been refining the design, getting the motifs down, etc - it's fun, this part! It's all relaxed, for the time being. This year, we will have be having a "gaming/gambling" theme, of sorts (which I've been working on for some time, so no offense to the new user who uses the playing card theme, I use this aesthetic in the site - but with a slight twist, I didn't steal your identity). So, as you can hear, the concerns - for now, anyway - are superficial. It's once it's up and running, things can get a little intense, so allow me to enjoy the calm before the storm  ;)

 

There will be a splash teaser page up at the actual eobb site, in the next couple of days. After this, the clock ticks, until the actual show begins. At which point, we begin, too. Hope to see you there.

 

Cheers,

Aaron 

 

 

Thanks Nick,

Don't forget to pack your bathers.

Aaron 

 

Thanks, Megan!

 

Firstly, thankyou for your kind words, but, secondly, thanks for sharing your experience of this topic.  I always love it when people can add to a discussion with their own personal perspectives. And I imagine there are many others in a similar situation to you, who are no doubt benefited from relating to the topic in a way that I can't give (because I've never been personally mixed up in these modern churches - my personal experience of religion is Catholic, I was raised in the Catholic institution, went to a Catholic school, etc).  

 

I think it's the institutionalisation of religion - any of them - that lends itself to financial corruption. It's disgusting, really, that they are exempt for tax, because all of them, in the end, are supporting the pastors, priests and preachers involved, with that money. It's not a charity, the church does not use its money for much charity at all, if you look at it proportionally - it thinks sustaining itself "is" the good deed, so I don't see why they should be exempt from tax, when they use the money they lure from people to buy themselves luxury cars and bigger houses than most of their congregation live in. The country is doing it so tough, right now, but they're certainly not!

 

I even saw that, when, a few years ago, I spent two weeks at the Buddhist camp, at Blackheath. Naively, I suppose, I presumed it would be "above" such problems. I went there out of curiosity, because I was studying psychology at uni, at the time, and I had grown rebellious, and thought the psychology industry were deluded, out of touch and arrogant, in refusing to look at any other ways that people found solutions to their problems. So, I went off to do Vipassana (that I'd heard a lot of people talking about) to see what the more spiritual approach was (and I was also interested in the concept of ego-disconnection - but that's probably getting a little heavy for most people, here). 

 

This was a "free" course, because Buddhism forbids making any money from the religion. They made it very clear in the leaflets that they did not operate as a business, asked for nothing in return, but had a system of donation that anyone was welcome to give to. Turns out the implications were a little more pressured than I thought. And, of course, everyone, at the end, gets out their wallet, because there are all these people who think they have found the meaning of life and, like true consumers, are happy to fork out for that. I suppose that's not a bad thing, as such, but I was a little stunned that, in the middle of the wilderness, the last thing they did was whack out an eftpos machine!

 

The thing is, I'd been to see the head honcho, during this course (I had real problems with it, and was taken to him, to discuss my misgivings) and in the middle of all these lectures about the importance of living without luxury (like Buddha, etc), and considering the leaflets had made it clear that the donations simply went into sustaining the facility, I wondered why this guy was living in a luxury pad, at the back of the facility, with a BMW parked outside it! I couldn't help but be skeptical.

 

And they were making it very clear that we were expected to donate - that got stronger, as it went on. They took down people's names who had, and kept asking, "Have you been able to donate, yet?" as if they were just being concerned that you'd been given the chance. I told them I wasn't going to, and that the Universe would find a way of thanking them for my salvation.

 

They came to know me a bit, and spotted me as someone who could potentially recruit the businesses I was involved with, at the time, and gave me a new leaflet to show any corporates I knew. Turns out they were shifting their focus away from the public, and targeting business men and women. The leaflet had a guy in a suit, doing meditation on a yoga mat, in front of his briefcase! Their reasoning was that businessmen had to deal with more stress than most, and they felt the programme could be particularly useful for them. Call me a cynic, but I simply thought, "You mean, they donate more money than most people..."

 

To me, spirituality should be personal. It shouldn't need an institution, or a collective of any kind. Any time there is a power structure, and a foundation of conformity around it, to me, it's the antithesis to spirituality. I don't mind the idea that these places need to sustain themselves, but it nearly always crosses that line. But Hillsong have crossed it, like no other. I'm glad you're out! I hope there are other people reading this, who can take inspiration from your ability to think for yourself and join those dots. 

 

Thanks again, Megan!

 

Aaron 

 

 

 

 

Hi Ellen,

 

I did also say that it's going to be horrible! But, yes, I do think that it could work, in some ways. But, remember, there are two ways of looking at it - one is personally, in terms of what I think "works" and doesn't (for myself), and the other is the bigger commercial picture. 

 

Personally, I couldn't think of anything worse! However, I understand that in looking at who was going to replace Gretel (which was always going to happen), I can see how they arrived at that decision to put Sandilands in there.

 

What I think it is assured of "working" as is the initial interest. It means that the opening night is assured a huge crowd. That's always the first goal of the production, and something they have always been able to do. The first show always has that audience - the problem is, they don't stick around, anymore. What's failed for them is that in creating the hype for the opener, they actually hinder the return rate, because most of those aspects end up being fizzlers. But people will turn up to see what Kylie is like, hosting Big Brother. Aren't you interested? C'mom, admit it, you are! Even if it's out if disgust, you're going to rock up to see what it's like. 

 

The question, then, is will he sustain the show beyond that? It is here where I am more skeptical. I think it's a big risk. Kyle Sandilands is a huge star for the market they now aim that show at. We may loathe him, here, but that man has a huge following, and the white-trash demographic adore the guy. Sad, but true.  He represents them, perfectly. And that's what's so right and so wrong about it. Can you think of another Australian celebrity figure who stands for what we loathe about that show, any more than Kyle Sandilands? I can't. 

 

However, he's never been in this kind of hosting role, so that's the risk. It's not radio jockeying, it's not being on a judging panel; it's standing up, in front of a crowd, and hosting the entire thing. That's a huge step for him, despite all he's done, and who's to say whether it will work or not? We can presume they've done some screen tests, etc - maybe - but it's still a long shot. One wonders if the network are thinking short-term, at the expense of the long-term.

 

It's interesting, too, because Kyle Sandilands did actually have a bad year, last year. I have a feeling (we'll leave it at that) that it was actually the year before, where Sandilands was put on the table as the future of BB. It would have been a better time for him, because what followed, last year, didn't serve him well. And, to be honest, I think it was the Denton interview. I'm not just talking about what it did in terms of Kyle's image, but in terms of what it did to the man, himself. He seemed timid, last year, even conflicted - something was starting to go wrong for Sandilands, and I think it's a personal dynamic for him. He hardly stole the Idol show, he paled next to Dicko, and couldn't cut it (as I said, I'm stunned they kept him over Holden - I would have identified Sandilands as the dead wood, but they are obviously convinced this is his year). So, please don't put me down on record as saying Sandilands is going to revive Big Brother and it's all going to go great guns, I don't think that. 

 

At very least, I do think Kyle Sandilands will provide an interesting subject matter for Eyeonbigbrother! Gretel was certainly fascinating, and I think Kyle will also be, in a different way. I think the main question everyone really wonders is, "How brurtal is this going to get?" He is, after all, known for his brutality. And, to me, the irony is that what went wrong last year was that he lost that, the brutality seemed deflated. Again, I think the Denton thing threw him. But even though, in one way, surely it's good that he's lost that, that is not what he's paid to do as a star, and certainly not what BB are paying him to do. So, to me, his success hangs on providing that car accident that we are supposed to be mesmerised by. We'll see. 

 

Thanks,

Aaron