And people think Shane Filan knows nothing about music

Shane from Westlife has decided that their single wasn't as good as Leona Lewis':

"At the end of the day, I think Leona had the better song - it's more exciting and she deserves to be number one. Maybe Take That had a better song, too."

Yes. And you know what else was better and more exciting than the Westlife single? Every other thing that's ever been put on a record. Even the theme from the Apple Dumpling Gang. Especially the theme from the Apple Dumpling Gang.

R Kelly's PR: I Believe I Can Say Bye

R Kelly has had good PR representation. Someone who's stood by him during nearly a decade and a half and managed to make a person who - by most common measures - would normally be a number one target retain a surprising amount of good press.

Up until now, anyway, as Regina Daniels has quit after 14 years:

, "I have prided myself on loyalty, respect and professionalism. It saddens me that I was not always shown those same courtesies during my 14-year tenure as Mr. Kelly's publicist ... There are some lines that should never be crossed professionally or personally. Mr. Kelly crossed a line that forever altered the scope of our relationship. For this reason I made the decision to resign."

Good god - fourteen years. That's nearly as long as the girl in the alleged sex tape had been alive. We don't know what Kelly did that has finally pissed Daniels off, but we'd be rather nervous - the one person you don't want to annoy is the one who's kept the lid on your boiling pot, Kelly.

It's yet another new take on selling music online

We're trying hard to not just be totally cynical, but when someone pitches up promising “fresh take on the distribution structure of music, offering all-digital, all-free music for streaming or download without DRM", we tend to think "oh, this is just going to be yet another website that attempts to make money from advertising" rather than "really? what's the totally new take, then?"

And so it is. RCRDLBL wouldn't even be worth a second breath were it not for the involvement of Engadget founder Peter Rojas, but it's really just another Spiralfrog in a long line of Spiralfrogs.

The New York Post reports:

One source familiar with the project described it as a "curated YouTube or MySpace for music with an editorially driven filter."

You know what? Most of the business MySpace and YouTube does is, erm, music-related. It's like setting up a service promising to be the Amazon of online DVD sales.

"I am a sell-out" proclaim of Montreal

Of Montreal's Kevin Barnes has written an interesting think-piece for Stereogum which, effectively, attempts to contextualise the band's signing-up to do ads for T-Mobile.

To an extent, his justifications make a certain amount of sense:

The only way to avoid selling out is to live like a savage all alone in the wilderness. The moment you attempt to live within the confines of a social order, you become a sell out. Once you attempt to coexist you sell out. If that's true, then selling out is a good thing. It is an important thing. If we didn't do it, we'd be fucked, quite literally, by everyone bigger than us physically who found us fuckable.

And then becomes something of a hymn to capitalism:

The thing is, I like capitalism. I think it's an interesting challenge. It's a system that rewards the imaginative and ambitious adults and punishes the lazy adults.

Now, clearly there's a degree to which Barnes is setting up a cartoon version of the alternative, presumably a welfare state/socialism that he doesn't understand. But even so, it's surprising to hear Barnes offering such a far-right viewpoint. The implication that anyone left out of the capitalist free-for-all must be lazy could have come from a Tory party conference platform in the 1980s.

Even if you're comfortable with a political-economic system in which punsihment - by which Barnes means homelessness, starvation and poor health, remember, rather than a gentle chiding and being given a detention - is at the heart of the model, you might baulk a little at the suggestion that those who don't thrive under the model are "lazy".

What about those who've been born without the skills to do well in the red-toothed capitalist world? What about those who fall sick, or who have the misfortune to be born in an area where the schools are poorly run? Those whose parents are unable to support their study, who leave school early, who just happen to be born into poor families in bad neighbourhoods? Capitalism might reward the "imaginative and ambitious" (although softcore porn sells better than novels of ideas, so the first half of that contention seems unlikely), but it rewards better those born with means to buy and sell. If your political system commodifies everything, those who thrive will be those with access to money, not necessarily those who can earn it.

I like producing and purchasing things. I'd much rather go to IKEA than to stand in some bread line. That's because I don't have to stand in a bread line.

Had we the time, we'd work up an essay suggesting that queuing to purchase a Zavkilli chair in Ikea on a Saturday afternoon is little different from queuing to get bread in some broken Stalinist state. Instead, we'll just raise a curious eyebrow that Barnes seems to be suggesting that not selling your music to T-Mobile is somehow akin to being caught in Ceausescu's Romania.

Obviously, I've struggled with the concept. I've struggled because of the backlash following my songs placement in TV commercials. That is, until I realized that the negative energy that was being directed towards me really began to inspire my creativity. It has given me a sense of, "well, I'll show them who is a sellout, I'm going to make the freakiest, most interesting, record ever!!!" ... "I'm going to prove to them that my shit is wild and unpolluted by the reach of some absurd connection to mainstream corporate America."

It's an interesting suggestion - that flogging his music to a mobile phone company has driven him to make more extreme music. But if Barnes' suggestion - that not selling his music to companies would leave him starving and, literally, on the breadlines - then why would he do this? Isn't that a bit of an odd thing to do?

Barnes concludes that we should view advertising a good thing:

Next time you see a commercial with one of your favorite bands songs in it, just tell yourself, "cool, a band I really like made some money and now I can probably look forward to a few more records from them." It's as simple as that. We all have to do certain things, from time to time, that we might not be completely psyched about, in order to pay the bills. To me, the TV is the world's asshole boss and if anyone can earn some extra bucks from it and they're not Bill O'Reilly, it's a good thing.

And, of course, that's true. All art needs a patron; even musicians got to eat.

What's missing, though, is any indication from him that besides providing a soundtrack, he's also providing an endorsement. There's nothing that suggests he's considered if T-Mobile is a brand that he wants to get behind, that he's comfortable with flogging mobile phones. Which is where his argument falls apart. Sure, he's making money, but if he's just allowing anyone to take his music and slap it on their advert, then he's really reduced his art to the most brutal of transactions. He's not participating in a noble capitalist transaction, he's just prostituting himself.

Japan recoils from Revolver

Velvet Revolver are upset and hurt that they're having to having to cancel their Japan tour after getting knocked back at the visa stage:

"We want to apologize to our fans in Japan that we won't be able to perform our scheduled concerts.

"We don't understand why the authorities won't give us visas, when they granted them for us in 2005 for what was a successful tour and a great experience. We love Japan and look forward to our return there."

We'd imagine there's a very, very good reason why - having had them play there once - Japan suddenly realise they don't want them back again.

Canada plans copyright reform

The Canadian government looks set to bring forward "copyright protection" measures in the next few weeks designed to try and shore up unsustainable business models.

The Industry Canada spokesperson outlined the intentions:

"Canada's Copyright Act needs to be reformed to respond to the challenges of the digital age," said [Caroline Grondin]. "New protections proposed for the benefit of rights holders will seek to address online infringement as well as create a legal framework that encourages the rollout, by rights holders, of new business models."

You might wonder why copyright protection should be in the realm of the industry ministry rather than the department which deals with culture; you might also spot that Grondin talks about rights holders and business models rather than artists and art.

The RIAA client organistaion north of the border at least remembers to pay lip service to the people who actually make the music:

Graham Henderson, president of labels body the Canadian Recording Industry Assn. (CRIA), said the legislation will demonstrate the country's commitment to protecting its songwriters and musicians.

"Is it going to replace our lost revenue every year? Of course not," Henderson said. "But it is a start. Right now, our big problem is that digital sales aren't replacing lost physical sales. A new Copyright Act would help foster new digital business models that haven't appeared in Canada because of piracy."

It's not entirely clear why Henderson believes that simply because companies are no longer able to sell product in a changed market that the correct response would be to alter the law. Nor can he point to any songs which haven't been written because Canadian musicians are worried about piracy.

Of course, the CRIA points to all its losses:

The music industry has long blamed the existing Copyright Act for the proliferation of file sharing and the long-term decline in CD sales, with shipments dropping a further 19 percent year on year in 2007 through August (the most recent figures available), according to the CRIA.

Leaving aside the question of how far that fall can be put down to shifts in consumer spending patterns not related to the availability of music online - such as, for example, the rising interest rate in Canada and having to spend more cash on food and heating leaving less money for entertainment purchases - will new laws actually help? After all, in the US, there's the DCMA and yet, despite the legislation, CD sales fell even faster than they did in Canada.

The only difference the new legislation will make is that it'll criminalise some behaviour with laws that are virtually unenforceable. It's not going to "replace lost revenue" because nothing is going to. The CRIA should be helping its members adjust to a new world, not try to protect the old one.

Mozzer in the capital's future

Morrissey is going to do a six-night residency at the Camden Roundhouse next January.

The Daily Winehouse

Yesterday, the Telegraph carried an article attacking the audiences who complained about the Winehouse Birmingham show.

Today, they've run another, almost identical piece, this time filed by Andrew Pierce:

The whingers are lucky she even turned up. Don't they read the newspapers? Or listen to the Today programme, which has also referred to this talented but deeply flawed diva's personal problems?

Imagine how the Telegraph would react if, instead of being a musician, she was a plumber who turned up late, botched the job, spat and threatened the customers before leaving with task still unfinished. It's odd they're so relaxed about Winehouse doing it.

Pierce attempts to suggest that she's in the tradition of Joplin, Piaf and Hendrix, before adding another name to her forebears:

Needless to say the tabloids, typically, have chronicled every disaster in her relentlessly downward spiral. We have seen it all before. They build them up - think Paul Gascoigne - and stick the boot in when they are on the way down.

Probably the first time Winehouse and Gascoigne have been compared - although, of course, Gascoigne himself made his own visit to the charts - and the mention is interesting.

It's true that the tabloids did build Gazza up, when he was playing well. And, yes, when he slipped, they gleefully detailed his decline. But it's just fantasy to lay the blame for his fall from grace on the papers: he enjoyed a drink - too much; he enjoyed his food - too much, for an athlete. He was the architect of his own misfortune and while you might find the red tops' delight in sharing his decline callous, he'd have still been eating the kebabs and drinking the booze. Just without the attention. The same, you feel, would be true of Winehouse. However reprehensible you might find the behaviour of Fleet Street, it's not like they're forcing Blake to (allegedly) conspire to pervert the course of justice after (again allegedly) beating the shit out of someone, or making Amy sit in the toilets puffing away on fags. For a paper which supposedly believes in personal responsibility, it's interesting how quickly they are to remove that responsibility from Winehouse's shoulders.