I thought this was a really good piece of writing. It’s rare to do something like this because the job discourages it by putting PR filters on everything you say.
My uncle was a pretty big pop star in the 1960s. His group at one point had a big fanzine, they were household names across the country, over time they had stalkers and weird fans and all that, made movies and albums, had big parties and knew other famous people, pretty much all those things that the OP writes about (circa 50 years later, some of it has changed but not that much).
He could be charismatic and surprisingly eloquent and I could picture him writing a piece like this, if the mood had struck.
He also lost pretty much all the money through mismanagement (several times over), eventually moved out of LA, had a tumultuous family life with numerous spouses and wasn’t around much for his kids, and after his 40s was trapped in a sad cycle of reunion tours because the band still needed the money. The tours still had some level of excitement and crowd enthusiasm, even pretty late in life and I guess he always loved the stage, the performing, all that. But in the end, I kinda felt it seemed like a lonely existence. Hard to form really deep connections when you’re always traveling and often away in your head.
> after his 40s was trapped in a sad cycle of reunion tours because the band still needed the money.
Celebrity memoirs are often written for the same reasons, or to promote other ventures. For instance Peter Wolf seemingly reluctantly shared vignettes about Dylan, The Stones, Faye Dunaway, and rock 'n' roll life in the 1970s to promote his newer stuff:
"I was putting out solo CDs. Not to sound self-congratulatory, but I thought each one got better and better— but they weren’t finding an audience. I thought a book might encourage people to check out the other stuff. So basically, the intent of the book was to find a wider audience."
It was interesting and a fun read, but not a “good piece of writing” in my opinion. Apart from some spelling mistakes, the sentences droned on and it read more like a semi-coherent rant than a thoughtful piece on “being a pop star”.
That's the fate of many acts from that period. So so so many artists who were stratospherically popular but are still touring for cash playing to nobody younger than them. It's sad.
Courtney Love wrote a fabulous article explaining the realities of a million-dollar album (2000 - https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/) and it explains so much of whats actually going on that the public doesn't fully comprehend. Its a great read if you've never read it.
The realities are similar to what we are reading in this article. Most of what gets talked about is gross numbers not net. Most of the benefits of the job, are in the journey not the destination - if you're even into that stuff... i.e. having your music impact lives.
I wish sooooo much that people could read these things so when I go to a dinner party or random event, some GenPop person knew that JK Rowling makes billions of dollars but your average published writer loses money publishing a book. Your average NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL athletes are broke 5 years after they are out of the league. Fame, is mostly a curse.
Good on charli xcx for writing this and for writing period.
> Your average NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL athletes are broke 5 years after they are out of the league. Fame, is mostly a curse.
I'm not familiar with the financials of music / media production (I didn't read the linked article yet, sorry). But I feel this over-pitying attitude towards professional sports players is misplaced. They do often go broke after their career. That is sad. It is also completely avoidable with _very_ basic financial planning. I think feeling sorry for them is a disservice, because it makes it seem that this outcome is hard to avoid. It's not hard when they're making 500k+/year:
1. Spend (a lot) less than you make. At 500k/year anywhere in the US, you should easily be saving 200k / year.
2. Invest the money you've saved. There's lots of good advice online, and realistically if you're saving 200k/year you don't have to worry about making the best choices -- just decent ones.
3. Don't accept generic lifestyle creep!
People need to be responsible and take control of their finances. You can't rely on somebody else to watch your finances, or make you eat your vegetables, or brush your teeth. The same advice applies to lots of people in tech, IMO.
It's interesting to observe that fame (and the money that usually comes with it) seems to follow something like a log scale. People usually don't become gradually more famous in a linear way. They're more likely to spend a few years with 50k listeners and then get a big hit and get 1 million listeners overnight, then the next big jump is 20 million, and so on.
It's possible to be semi-famous and still able to go to the grocery store and pump your own gas without getting recognized. The local sports radio guys don't need an entourage, even if they do get recognized. But as a rising artist, you hit a point where you can no longer go out in public at all. It's really shocking when it happens because it's so abrupt. My dad's famous friend was a regular at a local restaurant and wasn't bothered for a long time, even when his name/face started showing up in the media. Then one day another customer shouted his name and he got mobbed by fans, and he realized he couldn't go out to eat like a normal person anymore. I think Charli crossed that line with the success of her album Brat last year. It's the point where you start to ask yourself if it's really worth it, and maybe consider going full recluse like Thomas Pynchon. (That's not even getting into the online stan culture stuff that Charli talks about in the article.)
The "average" player in one of those sports leagues isn't really a celebrity at the level the article is talking about. Charli XCX's last album was nominated for 11 Grammies and won six of them, and it has the 15th highest aggregate rating from Metacritic of all time. If you're comparing to athletes, this is All-Star roster, potential MVP winning-level performance for at least that season. By no means it's every player who hits 50 home runs in a season is going to be set for life financially, but the chances they're going to struggle are a lot lower than some some random utility infielder or middle reliever.
That just sounds like you're saying the "average" person in all those professions are bad at personal finance. Maybe that's a reflection of society at large. One articles estimates 90% of Americans being in debt[1] so it wouldn't surprise me that this successful subset would fare much better (although I would bet they do when compared to the general population).
Also debt isn't always bad, but most individuals quoted in the study are probably not holding the good type of debt (debt one can easily pay off but doesn't).
> Your average NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL athletes are broke 5 years after they are out of the league. Fame, is mostly a curse.
They would also have been broke if they hadn't been athletes. The career doesn't damage their finances. It's excellent for their finances while it lasts, and then they revert to normal. Why would you call that a curse?
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.
> 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 certain death.
He said whenever he felt down, he'd recall the men that never had a chance to grow old, and his problems would melt away.
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 everything, and still aim towards other goals. If one is not risking life, you are well justified in complaining about the traffic jam.
Say what you will about this piece, I didn’t detect any AI in it and for that I thank Charli. I’ve been desperately for any original thoughts whatever that come out of a human being’s brain and in that sense it was an interesting read. However the real pearl was the link to Lou Reed’s interview, what a gem! It got me into a rabbit hole of watching Lou Reed making “fun” of obnoxious journalists on YouTube and I haven’t laughed this much in a long time. It also reminded me of this classic one from Iggy Pop: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=78S0yrMLfTU&pp=ygUcaWdneSBwb3A...
I believe I listened to Charli XCX music once, my girlfriend has grandchildren. Not really my thing, but it's great that people are still being influenced by those interviews.
I still listen to the Velvet Underground all the time, but if I listen to Lou Reed's solo stuff, it's either Walk On the Wild Side or those interviews.
Maybe "The Kids" from Berlin once in a while.
And "Sweet Jane" depending on whether you consider Loaded as a VU album.
I was fortunate enough to be somewhat on television as a geek/nerd for 2-3 years. I was not famous, didn't make money out of it.
It happened from time to time that people recognized me when at the groceries or some other place. I always had found that very awkward. These people have an image of you, they know a bit about you, they like you but on the other hand you absolutely don't know them. I did my best to be welcoming and had genuine interest in who they were but the asymetry was very awkward to me.
Also, people close to your friends also know you are "on tv" and then you can feel they look at you differently. It's subtle (after all, I was just a verrrrrrrrrryy minor figure) but it's there.
But what I've learned a lot is that once you see the TV and some famous people from the inside, you realize that they are much more normal than what you thought. Sure they've got some talent you sure don't have, but for the rest they're human: some are cool, some are not, some funny some boring, etc.
> We are still trained to hate women, to hate ourselves and to be angry at women if they step out of the neat little box that public perception has put them in.
I really don’t see this. Female singers seem to be enjoying about as much freedom to do and act in whatever way they please as it’s possible without basically letting them get away with criminal behavior… and even then many openly talk about doing drugs and other stuff that would get anyone else in trouble. Is it possible I am blind to some patriarchal society traits that make us “hate” women and she’s right about that?? If not, why some women still believe that??
Few female pop stars manage to gain success without appealing to the "male gaze" even if they produce stuff for women as their target demographic. On the contrary people mostly don't care if male musicians are hot - Ed Sheeran or make very questionable decisions - Drake.
Look at top 20 male and female popular artists on Spotify and try to think how many of them are agreeable and objectively good looking.
I also think she missed the point there. Normal people bust their asses on a daily basis to do a good job at whatever it is they do, with more often than not, under rewarding compensation and a lot of problems to overcome. I think it is normal for average people to think that it isn’t fair that some of these people are getting so much overwhelmingly good stuff for things that can be reasonably seen as futile.
It's the other way around. Female privilege is invisible, so you can easily claim the opposite.
Female privilege can be used to bend men to a woman's will. It's kind of like a resource curse like oil exports. You can cheaply import anything and pay for it by exporting oil. This means your country doesn't have to develop independent production, which makes it dependent on the imports of another country. When things are going wrong internally, you can always point at an external locust of power. The problem is that your trade partners are no longer exporting their products to you and they obviously know that this will hurt your country. They are making a calculated decision against you. You are powerless and it's because the other countries have been hoarding/accumulating power and are using this power to keep you powerless. The classic communist excuse that it's the capitalist sanctions that are the problem.
As I said, the problem is a lack of an internal locust of control. The externalisation, no matter how convincing, is a way to distract from the actual problem. The fact that there are gender specific boogiemen doesn't really change anything.
The Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing" is one of my all-time favorite 80s hits. Mark Knopfler pretty much composed the lyrics simply by transcribing some remarks he overheard from blue-collar servicemen working at an appliance store, and adjusting them a bit to make them scan and rhyme.
The deliberate irony is that contrary to the servicemen's belief that rock stars live a life of ease, the life of a musician can be grueling. You have to spend years mastering your instrument(s) and then win the record-deal lottery; after which your time is pretty much divided between being in the studio recording, on tour performing and promoting the album on a round-the-clock schedule, and with the rise of MTV shooting music videos. It's no wonder rock stars are prone to hedonism; they probably think they have to drink deeply of relaxation and pleasure while they have the opportunity, in order to reset and be ready for the next album, the next concert tour, the next press event...
They try to sell your body and your soul
It's the price you pay for rock 'n roll
And no-one understands it how you feel
For it's so unreal, oh, it's so unreal
Baby, don't you cry for me
It's an illusion, just an illusion
I couldn't think of anything worse than to be known world wide.
You couldn't go out in public without being hounded or swamped by people. The parasocial relationships people form with you can put your life in danger.
Even worse is being a politician - particularly at a global leader level. Surely there has been an average Joe who has shithoused their way into being a leader of a significant country. Once you do that, with politics being as toxic as it is, for the rest of your days you can be a marked person.
Tim Ferris once made the point that at an incidence rate of psychotic episodes (~26 per 100.000 people) compared to expected influencer reach (several million if you're doing well), statistically you are expected to have a few dozen severely mentally ill people in your audience. Several of those may project you to be the cause of all their problems, even if you are literally the most wholesome person in the world just because they are not experiencing reality in a sensible way at the moment.
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.
It's just entertainment. I don't think there's anything to it. The four chord song over and over. We all want some sort of excitement or maybe magic, and these superstars give it to us. The reality distortion fields around them is attractive in and of themself as an escape from our boring lives. Being 'artistic' is not in itself a good thing. It could just mean you take yourself too seriously. If you advance the art somehow - cool. If you're just being weird for the sake of originality... I guess some people like that as well.
The James Blunt documentary has similar qualities of the insanity and the banality of fame. "You look just like..." type commentary, from ordinary encounters. Both reviled and admired, he managed to leverage haters on Twitter into an image of self deprecating humour. Combined with some PTSD from his army career and stage effects.
Ed Sheeran gives off what i suspect is a very carefully managed vibe of ordinariness. If it's not curated it's very well done.
Not a fan of his music but I remember this one interview where he (paraphrased) went "People say I just have a talent for music. No, it was hard work - listen to this terrible phone recording of me singing out of tune"
It is correct to be skeptical of people who parlay their fame in one domain into another. The most powerful man in the US right now is just a reality TV star.
At best, it allows "celebrities" to hop into any domain of their choosing without any real qualification or having earned their way in that particular field.
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…)
Not just fame and celebrity. Any major success occurs within a certain narrow context, and when people stray outside that context they are not necessarily going to be better than anyone else. There are plenty of examples of business leaders, scientists, etc who tried to hop domains and fell on their faces.
Her essay makes it seem like she's mostly powerless. She gets shuttled around from place to place because other people make money by using her as a prop. She gets paid lots of money and is given freedom, in a sense, but it's freedom to gorge herself on basic pleasures like attention, drugs, and wealth. Overall it seems like a childlike existence.
This is what makes the ‘successful’ parts slightly off to me. I get that she is successful, she is well known, presumably made good money etc - but in some sense it’s the machinery behind her that has been successful in using her. Everything she is, is just a brand created and owned by someone else.
Replying to my own comment several days later: I regret writing this. I know nothing about this woman's life yet I attempt to rip her to pieces, and I wrote the comment mostly to show off.
> I’ve always wondered why someone else’s success triggers such rage and anger in certain people and I think it probably all boils down to the fact that the patriarchal society we unfortunately live in has successfully brainwashed us all. We are still trained to hate women, to hate ourselves and to be angry at women if they step out of the neat little box that public perception has put them in.
I assume roughly half of pop stars are male, give or take. Or, given the quote and speaking in generalities, at least roughly half of successful people are male. I’m sure we can all name wildly successful males who garner the same hate she is speaking about.
I don’t think it’s patriarchy, I think it’s simply jealously, insecurity, and judgmental feelings all wrapped up into a big ball of hate.
Or it’s the patriarchy. Just doesn’t make sense for the point trying to be made.
Splits up as 31 men to 19 women on their top 50 richest singers list. So closer to 2/3rds men that half.
I did realise while counting, that my gut feel wouldn't have included a lot of those men as "pop stars", in retrospect probably because my interpretation of "pop music" leans heavily towards women, and rightly or wrongly I'd label at least half the men on that list as "rock stars" instead (and very few of the women).
I also don’t understand why people don’t ascribe some inherently bad behaviours to human nature. Everyone knows people aren’t perfect, but somehow we have to blame some institutions or perceived societal phenomena instead of just acknowledging that we are, in our very nature, flawed - but capable of great change, and should just all endeavour to “be better”.
It is ironic that she talks about "the patriarchy" brainwashing people. I have serious doubts that she came up with the thought to blame it on the "patriarchy" herself.
> I don’t view what I do as a ‘job’
> doing an actual real service industry job
I see a lot of other figures in pop culture echo this sentiment. The need to downplay the effort involved because the payoff is disproportionate to the effort/payoff ratio of most other jobs. In a job where mass public perception dictates success I can see why she would feel the need to include this, but I hope she doesn't truly believe it. A globally recognized chef who gets paid millions for their work isn't downplaying his effort because of how disproportionately valued it is, so neither should a pop star.
> patriarchal society we unfortunately live in has successfully brainwashed us all
I'm not totally subscribed to this "patriarchy" narrative. I think any "brainwashing" (or establishment of cultural norms) is from a mix of figures from both genders alike. I don't think it's a symptom of the perceived problem of higher positions mainly holding men in power. I do agree with her assessment with there being people postured to give an excessive amount of hate to women who don't fit their societal expectations vs. men who don't, so I'll give her that.
With that said, this was still a good read. I'm not too familiar with Charli XCX but I have a lot of respect for her using her free time to share her experiences. I hope to see more from her in the future.
If any 'normal' person wants to experience the smallest titch of this, go take your best American accent to someplace remote (but not in North America or tourist-Europe).
The locals there will try to pin which celebrity you are or if they have seen you before on the television.
It's not a 100% thing, maybe a 10% thing, of course.
But the more remote you are, the higher the hit rate.
It's because they know they are remote and off the paths, so they think that the only reason that an American is there is because they are filming something. Note this doesn't work with French speaking areas.
Fascinating. Also impressive rawness, and it doesn't even seem like she passed it thru Chatgpt. It's insane that my first inclination is to detect those telltale signs in a blog post, and here I found none.
Nobody who likes writing would use ChatGPT to write. First of all, it takes the fun out of it, and second of all, its writing is clinical and corporate. I'm writing to express myself, how would I accomplish that through someone else?
I don't think trying to detect ChatGPT is a good use of time. Either the writing is good, or it's not.
I feel absolutely confident that Charlie XCX would never use generative AI in any form. And this sentence is lovely;
"...let some random person you’ve just met in the bathroom try on the necklace around your neck that is equivalent to the heart of the ocean"
Like you I always look for signs of AI in writing I see online, and it's incredibly disappointing how often it's there. There's no personality, no charm, nothing unique - just the same flawless grammar and overuse of cliche. This piece is filled with the quality of humanity that we once took for granted. This is what we are losing.
She may be of the final generation of real creatives who aren't at a disadvantage relative to those who take the path of least resistance and put out slop. The current/next generation of the audience may look at manually created art as a curiosity, the way most of us think about listening to vinyl.
> and it doesn't even seem like she passed it thru Chatgpt
Oh my god, can we stop with the obsession of whether something has been chatgpt-ified? I like to know when things are true, or when they are good. I couldn't care less if they are chatgpt-y.
It's unfortunate to see her have a lot of self awareness of her status and what she represents in part (capitalism), but when it comes to asking herself why some people have a negative knee jerk reaction to her presence, she falls back to "it's because I'm a woman". Which to be fair I am positive happens and frequently. But I would be shocked if it wasn't more commonly because she's rich and famous and lives a life of hedonism (her words). She even touches on this when she describes entering through back entrances and the staff probably hating her. She represents the same feeling we have about trust fund babies. They have a ridiculous fun, easy, rewarding life, and meanwhile then waiter is cleaning baby vomit off the ground for $20 an hour after tips.
> 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... subconsciously people still believe there is only room for women to be a certain type of way
Is this limited to females or even those in pop? I think any star is at risk here. I'd argue male athletes are targets at least as often. See: public discourse on Travis Kelce.
One thing I found clever about certain celebrities, like Dolly Parton and Guy Fieri, is that their public images are so distinct but transient (Dolly Parton has a wig, Guy Fieri looks like Guy Fieri) that I imagine if they dressed down like normal people, they'd be able to blend in with the public.
> I find that this is often where the stupidity narrative can be born. I’ve always wondered why someone else’s success triggers such rage and anger in certain people and I think it probably all boils down to the fact that the patriarchal society we unfortunately live in has successfully brainwashed us all. We are still trained to hate women, to hate ourselves and to be angry at women if they step out of the neat little box that public perception has put them in. I think subconsciously people still believe there is only room for women to be a certain type of way and once they claim to be one way they better not DARE grow or change or morph into something else.
Nah it's nothing to do with women, it's simple jealousy. Everyone wants to be successful. If they can dismiss successful people as lucky or whatever (tbf some are) then it makes them feel better about their own failure to be successful (they are just as good; they just weren't as lucky).
A natural human tendency. Look at all the people saying Elon Musk isn't really an engineer. Yeah right, he definitely is heavily involved in the high level technical decisions. Yes he's an arsehole and moderately racist and probably quite lucky too but he is good at his job.
> Nah it's nothing to do with women, it's simple jealousy.
On the same note here. It's quite interesting what women are quick to attribute any negative behaviour or feeling against them as a sexism and maybe this is a result of some popular culture behaviour.
I think the people who argue about whether Musk is an engineer are the people who look up to him as a sort of Tony Stark figure. He certainly isn't Tony Stark, but then again, no one is.
As for Musk... tbh I think as the vast majority of us want things from other people we temper our behaviour.
But when you have enough fame and money to do what you want the filters can come off and we can be the selfish nasty people we really are. And some people obviously like to play on that too to get air time or just prove a point.
How’s that 2016 promise of LA to NYC autonomous driving goal going for Musk? Or his Cybercab venture going? And the decision to not use LIDAR in his vehicles? Or the Cybertruck’s dismal engineering and sales?
There’s nothing in there that I couldn’t capture with a very basic imagination.
While I appreciate how women face misogyny, we have made great progress where women are showing better progression than men in income and career achievement. I am a father to a young woman and feel our social group is full of very successful and inspiring women that we all appreciate to be around.
The author does women a disservice, instead of being inspiring with her climb to success, she’s venting that the world is just not good enough.
To become a pop star comes from pure luck and what is marketable in the moment. For this case, the observations are more of a cliche than anything interesting.
I thought her writing was 10x better than your comment, which was completely unoriginal, retreads old cultural tropes, and added nothing of value.
Of course you father of daughters doesn't think she's a good feminist role model for your girls. Thank you, good sir, for being an actual feminist. How brave.
Tell me more about what you think would be a service to women? Do you have a Substack where I can read your manly wisdom?
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 hard work. Touring and dancing and hosting shows is even harder. It requires a substantial intellectual capacity and stamina to achieve. You either have these things yourself, or you are propped up entirely by others who have them and are invested in you for money's sake. Given Charli XCX's background, it's not actually surprising that she, in fact, has all the talent, skill, and intellect required to do this stuff herself.
Editing to add: Another place to look to learn that people with this skillset often have very very deep inner lives is Dua Lipa's book club podcast (https://www.service95.com/tag/book-club). As someone who used to run these kinds of in-depth interviews, I can say, she is damn good at it.
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 influenced by the stylistic direction, composition, production and sound engineering of people associated with the PC Music record label. The statement that she had good enough taste to have been around these people is rather unfair -- she was around artistic innovators like Sophie, yes, but THEY are the ones that pioneered the sound.
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.
One famous exception that comes to mind is Grimes, who largely actually /makes/ her own music. She rarely seems to get credit for this.
This is not to say that vocalist popstars don't bring a lot to the table. They do. But what they bring to the table is incredible performance skill and charisma. I think poptimism has gone too far, to the point that we think the product was responsible for creating itself.
Charli XCX is diverse and experimental enough that my first instinct would be to assume she’s rather intelligent. For example, her collaboration in the PC Music scene comes off rather nerdy and eccentric actually, not exactly pop. And her lyrics usually have more to it than meets the ear, e.g. sometimes intentionally being a commentary on the party persona keeping her distracted from worse things. “I hate the silence (uh oh), that's why the music's always loud”
Of course, that isn’t a shallow opinion so perhaps someone unfamiliar to her would think otherwise
> 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.
after all, it takes a smart guy to play dumb. artists do portray a persona, or are encouraged by labels. at the same time we cannot blame others for buying it or making their own assumptions.
from first look about the book club podcast, it seems great that one reads a book and gets to talk directly with its author.
> 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.
> You’re in transit, you’re going somewhere but the journey itself takes up the majority of the experience.
That's how most people function. People work their asses off so that they can do something fun two weeks a year.
> 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.
Because even though people clearly have different levels of intelligence, saying this out loud goes against values of the society, and keeping the society together is more important than being truthful. This is one of those things that "normies" understand subconsciously but never articulate, while autists rarely understand because it's never articulated.
> 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
Pop star gets successful by playing a role of a stupid person. Some people think she's actually stupid. It doesn't take a degree in social sciences to connect the dots.
> I’ve always wondered why someone else’s success triggers such rage and anger
Jealously has existed since the dawn of time. Various cultures have sayings along "nothing makes one happier than someone else's misery".
> the patriarchal society
I've noticed that many people who see themselves as oppressed get tunnel vision and attribute lots of unrelated problems to said oppression. This is one of those subconscious biases that exist because having them gives you massive social advantage because you can get all the pity you want.
> Over recent years some people seem to have developed a connection between fame and moral responsibility that I’ve never really understood.
Rich and famous people have power. They're expected to use that power for good regardless of how they got the power.
No, she means literally being in transit from point A to point B. On a tour bus, in an airline lounge, on a plane, in a cab, in some random hotel, backstage waiting to go on stage.
I did 100% business travel for a couple of a years, and it was pretty grueling despite mostly being stationed with the same customer for a couple of months. At the Charli XCX level, you may be doing 4 gigs in 4 different cities in 3 days:
I had to go on Youtube to listen to some of the music mentioned here, as I'm pretty out of the loop on it. Given what I heard I honestly think we're basically at the point where AI can generate equivalent or even better music. It's just very simple and doesn't feel particularly innovative or noteworthy.
Point being, I think it's likely this person is one of the last pop stars.
Actually, as I'm writing this, I realized that probably the music being produced by this person is actually done by a computer. So, maybe she's in the first wave of totally artificial pop stars.
> Actually, as I'm writing this, I realized that probably the music being produced by this person is actually done by a computer. So, maybe she's in the first wave of totally artificial pop stars.
Her main collaborator, co-creator and producer of many years is the artist AG Cook, who founded the label PC Music. He appears often in her music videos and gets mentioned in her lyrics. His own solo work plays a lot with pairing the artificial and the organic, taking the "slick" aesthetics of electronic pop to abrasive extremes and placing it next to vulnerability and gentleness.
It makes me sad to think you have formed this opinion on her more than decade long career that spans a variety of genres and many collaborations based on a few brat songs you may have listened to
The novelty in pop music is not usually in the harmony. The novelty is usually in the presentation. The idea is that you hook the audience with familiarity (nostalgia) and then keep them with a novel expression of it. In recent years, this means really strange synth patches and vocal effects.
decasia|3 months ago
My uncle was a pretty big pop star in the 1960s. His group at one point had a big fanzine, they were household names across the country, over time they had stalkers and weird fans and all that, made movies and albums, had big parties and knew other famous people, pretty much all those things that the OP writes about (circa 50 years later, some of it has changed but not that much).
He could be charismatic and surprisingly eloquent and I could picture him writing a piece like this, if the mood had struck.
He also lost pretty much all the money through mismanagement (several times over), eventually moved out of LA, had a tumultuous family life with numerous spouses and wasn’t around much for his kids, and after his 40s was trapped in a sad cycle of reunion tours because the band still needed the money. The tours still had some level of excitement and crowd enthusiasm, even pretty late in life and I guess he always loved the stage, the performing, all that. But in the end, I kinda felt it seemed like a lonely existence. Hard to form really deep connections when you’re always traveling and often away in your head.
ilamont|3 months ago
Celebrity memoirs are often written for the same reasons, or to promote other ventures. For instance Peter Wolf seemingly reluctantly shared vignettes about Dylan, The Stones, Faye Dunaway, and rock 'n' roll life in the 1970s to promote his newer stuff:
"I was putting out solo CDs. Not to sound self-congratulatory, but I thought each one got better and better— but they weren’t finding an audience. I thought a book might encourage people to check out the other stuff. So basically, the intent of the book was to find a wider audience."
https://www.boston.com/culture/books/2025/03/10/peter-wolf-m...
Insanity|3 months ago
nunez|3 months ago
sandblast|3 months ago
singleshot_|3 months ago
jppope|3 months ago
The realities are similar to what we are reading in this article. Most of what gets talked about is gross numbers not net. Most of the benefits of the job, are in the journey not the destination - if you're even into that stuff... i.e. having your music impact lives.
I wish sooooo much that people could read these things so when I go to a dinner party or random event, some GenPop person knew that JK Rowling makes billions of dollars but your average published writer loses money publishing a book. Your average NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL athletes are broke 5 years after they are out of the league. Fame, is mostly a curse.
Good on charli xcx for writing this and for writing period.
pinkmuffinere|3 months ago
I'm not familiar with the financials of music / media production (I didn't read the linked article yet, sorry). But I feel this over-pitying attitude towards professional sports players is misplaced. They do often go broke after their career. That is sad. It is also completely avoidable with _very_ basic financial planning. I think feeling sorry for them is a disservice, because it makes it seem that this outcome is hard to avoid. It's not hard when they're making 500k+/year:
1. Spend (a lot) less than you make. At 500k/year anywhere in the US, you should easily be saving 200k / year.
2. Invest the money you've saved. There's lots of good advice online, and realistically if you're saving 200k/year you don't have to worry about making the best choices -- just decent ones.
3. Don't accept generic lifestyle creep!
People need to be responsible and take control of their finances. You can't rely on somebody else to watch your finances, or make you eat your vegetables, or brush your teeth. The same advice applies to lots of people in tech, IMO.
SL61|3 months ago
It's possible to be semi-famous and still able to go to the grocery store and pump your own gas without getting recognized. The local sports radio guys don't need an entourage, even if they do get recognized. But as a rising artist, you hit a point where you can no longer go out in public at all. It's really shocking when it happens because it's so abrupt. My dad's famous friend was a regular at a local restaurant and wasn't bothered for a long time, even when his name/face started showing up in the media. Then one day another customer shouted his name and he got mobbed by fans, and he realized he couldn't go out to eat like a normal person anymore. I think Charli crossed that line with the success of her album Brat last year. It's the point where you start to ask yourself if it's really worth it, and maybe consider going full recluse like Thomas Pynchon. (That's not even getting into the online stan culture stuff that Charli talks about in the article.)
saghm|3 months ago
derangedHorse|3 months ago
Also debt isn't always bad, but most individuals quoted in the study are probably not holding the good type of debt (debt one can easily pay off but doesn't).
[1] https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/demographics/
thaumasiotes|3 months ago
They would also have been broke if they hadn't been athletes. The career doesn't damage their finances. It's excellent for their finances while it lasts, and then they revert to normal. Why would you call that a curse?
canucker2016|3 months ago
MomsAVoxell|3 months ago
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.
NaomiLehman|3 months ago
WalterBright|3 months ago
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 certain death.
He said whenever he felt down, he'd recall the men that never had a chance to grow old, and his problems would melt away.
abc123abc123|3 months ago
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 everything, and still aim towards other goals. If one is not risking life, you are well justified in complaining about the traffic jam.
LanceH|3 months ago
I always feel put in a position when I'm in an interview and they ask about handling pressure in the workplace.
WalterBright|3 months ago
Balgair|3 months ago
The cereal aisle scene from Hurt Locker always did it for me
nikhizzle|3 months ago
low_tech_love|3 months ago
Edit: Actually that link is incomplete, this is also important: https://youtu.be/YJEvZHN9E6s
rufus_foreman|3 months ago
"Are you happier as a brunette?"
"Uh...are you happier as a schmuck?"
...
"You like doing things you don't like?"
"Yeah. That's a paradox isn't it?"
I believe I listened to Charli XCX music once, my girlfriend has grandchildren. Not really my thing, but it's great that people are still being influenced by those interviews.
I still listen to the Velvet Underground all the time, but if I listen to Lou Reed's solo stuff, it's either Walk On the Wild Side or those interviews.
Maybe "The Kids" from Berlin once in a while.
And "Sweet Jane" depending on whether you consider Loaded as a VU album.
wiz21c|3 months ago
It happened from time to time that people recognized me when at the groceries or some other place. I always had found that very awkward. These people have an image of you, they know a bit about you, they like you but on the other hand you absolutely don't know them. I did my best to be welcoming and had genuine interest in who they were but the asymetry was very awkward to me.
Also, people close to your friends also know you are "on tv" and then you can feel they look at you differently. It's subtle (after all, I was just a verrrrrrrrrryy minor figure) but it's there.
But what I've learned a lot is that once you see the TV and some famous people from the inside, you realize that they are much more normal than what you thought. Sure they've got some talent you sure don't have, but for the rest they're human: some are cool, some are not, some funny some boring, etc.
brabel|3 months ago
I really don’t see this. Female singers seem to be enjoying about as much freedom to do and act in whatever way they please as it’s possible without basically letting them get away with criminal behavior… and even then many openly talk about doing drugs and other stuff that would get anyone else in trouble. Is it possible I am blind to some patriarchal society traits that make us “hate” women and she’s right about that?? If not, why some women still believe that??
NaomiLehman|3 months ago
Look at top 20 male and female popular artists on Spotify and try to think how many of them are agreeable and objectively good looking.
https://kworb.net/spotify/listeners.html
I don't know know if this answers your question. I also might have a huge blind spot, open to talking about this.
low_tech_love|3 months ago
imtringued|3 months ago
Female privilege can be used to bend men to a woman's will. It's kind of like a resource curse like oil exports. You can cheaply import anything and pay for it by exporting oil. This means your country doesn't have to develop independent production, which makes it dependent on the imports of another country. When things are going wrong internally, you can always point at an external locust of power. The problem is that your trade partners are no longer exporting their products to you and they obviously know that this will hurt your country. They are making a calculated decision against you. You are powerless and it's because the other countries have been hoarding/accumulating power and are using this power to keep you powerless. The classic communist excuse that it's the capitalist sanctions that are the problem.
As I said, the problem is a lack of an internal locust of control. The externalisation, no matter how convincing, is a way to distract from the actual problem. The fact that there are gender specific boogiemen doesn't really change anything.
Gunax|3 months ago
Normal people despise being lectured by celebrities about social or political issues.
bitwize|3 months ago
The deliberate irony is that contrary to the servicemen's belief that rock stars live a life of ease, the life of a musician can be grueling. You have to spend years mastering your instrument(s) and then win the record-deal lottery; after which your time is pretty much divided between being in the studio recording, on tour performing and promoting the album on a round-the-clock schedule, and with the rise of MTV shooting music videos. It's no wonder rock stars are prone to hedonism; they probably think they have to drink deeply of relaxation and pleasure while they have the opportunity, in order to reset and be ready for the next album, the next concert tour, the next press event...
pan69|3 months ago
pardon_me|3 months ago
Baby, don't you cry for me It's an illusion, just an illusion
BZN - Just An Illusion https://genius.com/Bzn-just-an-illusion-lyrics
cypherpunks01|3 months ago
Two sentences I would've not predicted in close proximity to one another! Hah, love it. Guess he's been through a lot over the years.
polalavik|3 months ago
unknown|3 months ago
[deleted]
andrewinardeer|3 months ago
You couldn't go out in public without being hounded or swamped by people. The parasocial relationships people form with you can put your life in danger.
Even worse is being a politician - particularly at a global leader level. Surely there has been an average Joe who has shithoused their way into being a leader of a significant country. Once you do that, with politics being as toxic as it is, for the rest of your days you can be a marked person.
WJW|3 months ago
Link: https://tim.blog/2020/02/02/reasons-to-not-become-famous/
dfxm12|3 months ago
dbspin|3 months ago
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.
tormeh|3 months ago
verall|3 months ago
ggm|3 months ago
Ed Sheeran gives off what i suspect is a very carefully managed vibe of ordinariness. If it's not curated it's very well done.
wink|3 months ago
gizajob|3 months ago
joshcsimmons|3 months ago
At best, it allows "celebrities" to hop into any domain of their choosing without any real qualification or having earned their way in that particular field.
bdangubic|3 months ago
snowwrestler|3 months ago
thaumasiotes|3 months ago
That's a strange characterization; he was famous across the country before there was even a concept of "reality TV".
sandspar|3 months ago
dwroberts|3 months ago
sandspar|3 months ago
gishh|3 months ago
I assume roughly half of pop stars are male, give or take. Or, given the quote and speaking in generalities, at least roughly half of successful people are male. I’m sure we can all name wildly successful males who garner the same hate she is speaking about.
I don’t think it’s patriarchy, I think it’s simply jealously, insecurity, and judgmental feelings all wrapped up into a big ball of hate.
Or it’s the patriarchy. Just doesn’t make sense for the point trying to be made.
bigiain|3 months ago
I'd question that assumption. My gut feel says there are way more women pop stars?
I did a very quick bit of research, and maybe we're both wrong.
https://wealthygorilla.com/richest-singers-world/
Splits up as 31 men to 19 women on their top 50 richest singers list. So closer to 2/3rds men that half.
I did realise while counting, that my gut feel wouldn't have included a lot of those men as "pop stars", in retrospect probably because my interpretation of "pop music" leans heavily towards women, and rightly or wrongly I'd label at least half the men on that list as "rock stars" instead (and very few of the women).
rubenvanwyk|3 months ago
bloodyplonker22|3 months ago
coro_1|3 months ago
derangedHorse|3 months ago
I see a lot of other figures in pop culture echo this sentiment. The need to downplay the effort involved because the payoff is disproportionate to the effort/payoff ratio of most other jobs. In a job where mass public perception dictates success I can see why she would feel the need to include this, but I hope she doesn't truly believe it. A globally recognized chef who gets paid millions for their work isn't downplaying his effort because of how disproportionately valued it is, so neither should a pop star.
> patriarchal society we unfortunately live in has successfully brainwashed us all
I'm not totally subscribed to this "patriarchy" narrative. I think any "brainwashing" (or establishment of cultural norms) is from a mix of figures from both genders alike. I don't think it's a symptom of the perceived problem of higher positions mainly holding men in power. I do agree with her assessment with there being people postured to give an excessive amount of hate to women who don't fit their societal expectations vs. men who don't, so I'll give her that.
With that said, this was still a good read. I'm not too familiar with Charli XCX but I have a lot of respect for her using her free time to share her experiences. I hope to see more from her in the future.
Balgair|3 months ago
The locals there will try to pin which celebrity you are or if they have seen you before on the television.
It's not a 100% thing, maybe a 10% thing, of course.
But the more remote you are, the higher the hit rate.
It's because they know they are remote and off the paths, so they think that the only reason that an American is there is because they are filming something. Note this doesn't work with French speaking areas.
carabiner|3 months ago
stavros|3 months ago
I don't think trying to detect ChatGPT is a good use of time. Either the writing is good, or it's not.
plasticeagle|3 months ago
"...let some random person you’ve just met in the bathroom try on the necklace around your neck that is equivalent to the heart of the ocean"
Like you I always look for signs of AI in writing I see online, and it's incredibly disappointing how often it's there. There's no personality, no charm, nothing unique - just the same flawless grammar and overuse of cliche. This piece is filled with the quality of humanity that we once took for granted. This is what we are losing.
unknown|3 months ago
[deleted]
varjag|3 months ago
gdulli|3 months ago
some_guy_nobel|3 months ago
[deleted]
pinkmuffinere|3 months ago
Oh my god, can we stop with the obsession of whether something has been chatgpt-ified? I like to know when things are true, or when they are good. I couldn't care less if they are chatgpt-y.
whamlastxmas|3 months ago
rsanek|3 months ago
Is this limited to females or even those in pop? I think any star is at risk here. I'd argue male athletes are targets at least as often. See: public discourse on Travis Kelce.
MiddleEndian|3 months ago
IshKebab|3 months ago
Nah it's nothing to do with women, it's simple jealousy. Everyone wants to be successful. If they can dismiss successful people as lucky or whatever (tbf some are) then it makes them feel better about their own failure to be successful (they are just as good; they just weren't as lucky).
A natural human tendency. Look at all the people saying Elon Musk isn't really an engineer. Yeah right, he definitely is heavily involved in the high level technical decisions. Yes he's an arsehole and moderately racist and probably quite lucky too but he is good at his job.
justsomehnguy|3 months ago
On the same note here. It's quite interesting what women are quick to attribute any negative behaviour or feeling against them as a sexism and maybe this is a result of some popular culture behaviour.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42057441
mrdependable|3 months ago
nprateem|3 months ago
As for Musk... tbh I think as the vast majority of us want things from other people we temper our behaviour.
But when you have enough fame and money to do what you want the filters can come off and we can be the selfish nasty people we really are. And some people obviously like to play on that too to get air time or just prove a point.
squigz|3 months ago
So one can be a massive piece of shit as long as they're good at their job?
Many of us here probably have worked with people like that. It's not a good environment to work in.
TechnicolorByte|3 months ago
lazarus01|3 months ago
There’s nothing in there that I couldn’t capture with a very basic imagination.
While I appreciate how women face misogyny, we have made great progress where women are showing better progression than men in income and career achievement. I am a father to a young woman and feel our social group is full of very successful and inspiring women that we all appreciate to be around.
The author does women a disservice, instead of being inspiring with her climb to success, she’s venting that the world is just not good enough.
To become a pop star comes from pure luck and what is marketable in the moment. For this case, the observations are more of a cliche than anything interesting.
Cheer2171|3 months ago
Of course you father of daughters doesn't think she's a good feminist role model for your girls. Thank you, good sir, for being an actual feminist. How brave.
Tell me more about what you think would be a service to women? Do you have a Substack where I can read your manly wisdom?
unknown|3 months ago
[deleted]
wewewedxfgdf|3 months ago
The more anonymity the better.
ivraatiems|3 months ago
Making music at any professional level is extremely hard work. Touring and dancing and hosting shows is even harder. It requires a substantial intellectual capacity and stamina to achieve. You either have these things yourself, or you are propped up entirely by others who have them and are invested in you for money's sake. Given Charli XCX's background, it's not actually surprising that she, in fact, has all the talent, skill, and intellect required to do this stuff herself.
Editing to add: Another place to look to learn that people with this skillset often have very very deep inner lives is Dua Lipa's book club podcast (https://www.service95.com/tag/book-club). As someone who used to run these kinds of in-depth interviews, I can say, she is damn good at it.
bigmealbigmeal|3 months ago
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 influenced by the stylistic direction, composition, production and sound engineering of people associated with the PC Music record label. The statement that she had good enough taste to have been around these people is rather unfair -- she was around artistic innovators like Sophie, yes, but THEY are the ones that pioneered the sound.
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.
One famous exception that comes to mind is Grimes, who largely actually /makes/ her own music. She rarely seems to get credit for this.
This is not to say that vocalist popstars don't bring a lot to the table. They do. But what they bring to the table is incredible performance skill and charisma. I think poptimism has gone too far, to the point that we think the product was responsible for creating itself.
jameslk|3 months ago
Of course, that isn’t a shallow opinion so perhaps someone unfamiliar to her would think otherwise
thewisenerd|3 months ago
rldjbpin|3 months ago
after all, it takes a smart guy to play dumb. artists do portray a persona, or are encouraged by labels. at the same time we cannot blame others for buying it or making their own assumptions.
from first look about the book club podcast, it seems great that one reads a book and gets to talk directly with its author.
astrange|3 months ago
Considering cocaine is both illegal and has an obviously unethical supply chain, you'd think someone would try, you know, prosecuting her or something.
mediumsmart|3 months ago
anal_reactor|3 months ago
That's how most people function. People work their asses off so that they can do something fun two weeks a year.
> 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.
Because even though people clearly have different levels of intelligence, saying this out loud goes against values of the society, and keeping the society together is more important than being truthful. This is one of those things that "normies" understand subconsciously but never articulate, while autists rarely understand because it's never articulated.
> 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
Pop star gets successful by playing a role of a stupid person. Some people think she's actually stupid. It doesn't take a degree in social sciences to connect the dots.
> I’ve always wondered why someone else’s success triggers such rage and anger
Jealously has existed since the dawn of time. Various cultures have sayings along "nothing makes one happier than someone else's misery".
> the patriarchal society
I've noticed that many people who see themselves as oppressed get tunnel vision and attribute lots of unrelated problems to said oppression. This is one of those subconscious biases that exist because having them gives you massive social advantage because you can get all the pity you want.
> Over recent years some people seem to have developed a connection between fame and moral responsibility that I’ve never really understood.
Rich and famous people have power. They're expected to use that power for good regardless of how they got the power.
decimalenough|3 months ago
I did 100% business travel for a couple of a years, and it was pretty grueling despite mostly being stationed with the same customer for a couple of months. At the Charli XCX level, you may be doing 4 gigs in 4 different cities in 3 days:
https://toursetlist.com/charli-xcx-tour-setlist/
sfblah|3 months ago
Point being, I think it's likely this person is one of the last pop stars.
Actually, as I'm writing this, I realized that probably the music being produced by this person is actually done by a computer. So, maybe she's in the first wave of totally artificial pop stars.
sethaurus|3 months ago
Her main collaborator, co-creator and producer of many years is the artist AG Cook, who founded the label PC Music. He appears often in her music videos and gets mentioned in her lyrics. His own solo work plays a lot with pairing the artificial and the organic, taking the "slick" aesthetics of electronic pop to abrasive extremes and placing it next to vulnerability and gentleness.
This is my favourite piece of his work (both the song and the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH2wQ5speuU
Charli's work or his might not suit your taste! But these are real people doing interesting stuff and playing with the form. It's not fake.
jameslk|3 months ago
empressplay|3 months ago
nprateem|3 months ago
Why not save them from themselves with some of your approved recommendations?