That free Rihanna album redux

Last weekend I was in Amsterdam, so this is the first opportunity to react to the question why did Rihanna give her album away for free on Tidal?

To which there are two, interconnected answers:

Number one: because it's effectively patting Taylor Swift on the head and saying 'shush now about streaming sites only making you a tiny, tiny bit richer';

Number two: because when was the last time you even remembered Tidal even existed?

Hats off to her for coming up with an advertising campaign for a dying platform in which she's invested while making it look like she doesn't care about money. It's evil, but stylishly evil.

What the pop papers say: The free NME

Well, it even made the news on BBC Radio Bristol, so I suppose claims that the latest NME relaunch was "historic" aren't that overblown.

But what are we left with now?

The first nought-pee NME has bagged a pretty strong cover - Rihanna, with a fairly hefty interview with Peter Robinson. It's eveb got coverage in People and other US titles, and having talk lines picked up by other media won't hurt with getting the magazine picked up in shoes shops.

Editor Mike Williams explains the choice of Rihanna for the cover:

[She] totally embodies the spirit of the new NME. She's individual, she's iconic and, as she tell us in our world exclusive interview: "I just have a way of breaking the rules".

They might have been better getting Madonna, to be honest - her best days behind her, jumping awkwardly onto any fad a little too hard and a little too late, and when your Dad spots you're listening to her he asks "is she still going?"

It's also slightly awkward that Rihanna was on (one of the) covers of the 2010 relaunch, and significantly hasn't turned up since. Until yesterday.

The claim that Rihanna is iconic, and thus like the NME, is a bit weird too, as in Mike's welcome letter it comes just one paragraph south of a claim that:

Whether or not you know that NME launched in 1952 as New Musical Express [...] isn't important (though we're very proud of our incredible history).

If knowing the brand is insignificant, then the obvious question is: why have you slapped the brand on the magazine? If the letters "NME" don't have to mean anything to the reader, and the magazine under the letters is all new, why didn't you just come up with a name that would carry some meaning?

While the Rihanna interview is meaty (and obviously next week we'll get an idea if that scale of ambition is keeping up), the rest of the magazine is quite slight. Chrvches are interviewed, although the resulting piece is two pages, heavily padded out with (what don't appear to be specially shot) photos. Space is found for a tiny box about 'other bands which spell name funny ways' that doesn't mention Pvris, and implies that they're expecting readers to be going 'isn't Chrvches a strange word').

The other feature is even more dispiriting - why Big Bang Theory is the new Friends. Now, if we were in season two of Big Bang Theory, this sort of thing might just pass; if it was an unwatched gem tucked away in the schedules, it might have had something to say. But even on E4, it's getting an audience ten times the circulation of the new NME, so an article saying "hey, they're friends but it's like they're family" is bemusing. Next week: "hey, you guys, there's a series called Hollyoaks and it's a bit like Emmerdale but with a different accent."

It's good to see Peter Robinson Versus is back - although this week it's John Lydon. Asked what he'd tell new readers about the NME, he cracks wise with "you've got a good tractor section", although his more familiar put-down of "not new, not musical, and not particularly express" is now more fitting than ever.

The best innovation is a column by Katherine Ryan - I'm going to call her the new Alan Parker as a result. Other new clutter - a page asking people what they're listening to (currently the only indication that 'ordinary' people will be featured in the magazine, something of a strange decision in the social media era); a 'good week/bad week' ladder; a games page - could have come straight from Shortlist or any Saturday magazine bundled with a regional newspaper.

And what of the music? There's only three album reviews - a few shorter pieces do little more than acknowledge they are now available; a handful of tracks. The live pages are ten big pictures of upcoming gigs. There's no reviews of events that have happened, and one of those gigs is One Direction.

The good news, at least for Time Magazines, is that there's a lot of advertising - pages and pages of live ads (why print a full gig guide when people will pay you to promote their events?). So as it's clear there's barely any editorial budget at all, economically the relaunch appears to be working.

The 1980s NME would have seen you through a decent length train trip. The early 21st Century might have lasted a fast journey between Milton Keynes and London. This new version, if your train was five minutes late, you'd have finished before you got on board.

It's not that it's slight, but - presumably to encourage as many people as possible to pick it up - there's no sense of what it is, or what it believes, or even what it likes.

It's not a great new era for such a venerable title, but on the plus side: you do get a little bit more than what you pay for.

How terrible life is for some

If you have tears, prepare to shed them now for Bianca Guthrie.

She has a tormented life.

And it is all Rhianna's fault:

A girl, named Bianca Guthrie, claims that she cannot get boyfriend because of her resemblance to the famous pop star Rihanna.
[...]
She added that boyfriend who have dated her, just because she look like the pop star.

Ms. Bianca says “I’m desperate to find a man who sees past my resemblance to Rihanna”.

But if all men are interested in is that you look like Rihanna, and as that doesn't change, isn't it more that your problem is that you keep finding men who do see past your resemblance?

Anyway, best of luck carrying this burden of looking a bit like one of the most attractive people on the planet. We ugly people can only count our blessings.

Rihanna at war with the Boy Wonder

Rihanna has put in a trademark application to allow her to launch a cosmetics range under her real name.

Trouble is, her real name is Robyn, and that's upset DC Comics:

Rihanna’s legal firm, Roraj Trade, originally tried to trademark her name on June 23, 2014, for her new magazine. DC stopped the singer on May 11, 2015. They claimed that the name “Robin” already has his own trademarked products. The company trademarked the name “Robin” in 1995 so he could have his own comic book series and merchandise. Some would argue that Robyn is typically known as a female name.

Surely there's a more pressing problem here - a woman who isn't known professionally as Robyn and a character who isn't spelled Robyn are fighting over a name which...

...belongs to someone who is known professionally as Robyn, and who does spell it like that.

We know what you're doing, Rihanna

Really, Ri-Ri?:

According to an interview [she] did with Buzzfeed, where they played a game of Never Have I Ever, Rihanna revealed that she’s a huge fan of the baby animals and has been since she was a little girl.

She said, “I used to save these kittens — we had stray kittens in the street but they weren’t really stray, they belonged to a home they were just never at that home. So they were just like community cats kind of, and they would go in the gutters to have their babies and I would hear them crying, go rescue them, give them a little shower with my hair conditioner, keep ‘em in a bucket, feed them.”

We know what you're doing, Rihanna. It's like when Madonna started to hang out with Vanilla Ice. Trying to keep up with the next wave of artists, right?

There's only one Pop Kitten Queen, Rihanna, and the THRONE IS NOT EMPTY.

People who like guns like Rihanna's gun bag

A short while ago, Rihanna carried a handbag shaped like a gun. This led to a very small smattering of tutting on Twitter of a 'don't do that, it's not even a practical shape for a purse'; this, in turn, has brought out a rash of over-excited people who enjoy shooting things:

Some Liberals Are Freaking Out Because Of The Harmless Things Carried By This Pop Star

Oddly, the Western Journalism's claim isn't backed up very well - rather than 'liberals freaking out' it offers a couple of tweets of 'people who use celebrities as linkbait going "look, this is controversial"', but that isn't what should detain us here.

Because, although poorly laid out and badly argued, these gun-toting men's feature on chi-chi catwalk accessories does offer something of a classic case of the blowyourfaceoffophile's logic. Hidden amongst its claims that carrying a bag shaped like a gun is somehow empowering is a glimpse behind the curtain.

How would you describe Rihanna? Pop princess? The Umbrella hitmaker? Grammy Award Winner?

Not if you're writing about guns; then, she's just a victim:

Nevertheless, some anti-gun activists used the opportunity to criticize the domestic abuse victim for her ostensible glorification of firearms.

All the talk is about how empowering carrying around the ability to take away people's lives like a capricious god-toddler, but whenever a justification is reached for, it usually turns out to be about focusing on victimhood.

Rihanna does her bit to hustle lorises to extinction

Rihanna has been off in Phuket - presumably to put as much distance between her and that awful River Island range as possible - and managed to wade into a massive screw-up.

She had her picture taken with a loris, gleefully uploading it to Instagram.

It's not as cute as it sounds. The Bangkok Post explains:

Local wildlife advocates have alerted authorities to the picture of Rihanna with the slow loris, which is sometimes illegally used as a photo prop in tourist areas. The Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNWPC) has responded by urging residents to help identify where Rihanna was pictured holding the slow loris.

DNWPC deputy director-general Theerapat Prayurasiddhi yesterday said he would send officials to look into accusations of wildlife abuse if he receives specific information about where animals are being used as photo props.

There are some zoos which have been licenced to use lorises in this way, but even that is a terrible thing to promote - especially when endorsed by an international pop-star, as it all feeds into the horrific loris pet trade which is harming the creatures' chance of survival. Primates Not Pets explains just what a nasty trade Rihanna is helping:

After being snatched from the wild, slow lorises have to suffer a painful procedure to prepare them for their lives as pets. Their teeth are often cut off with nail clippers or pulled out with pliers to prevent the loris from injecting venom into its handlers and future owners. This cruel mutilation can leave the loris suffering from infections, and often results in a slow and painful death.

But their torture doesn’t end there, with the lorises exposed to stressful conditions until they reach their owners. If intended for the international trade, the loris can be transported in overcrowded conditions with poor ventilation. The stress placed on the animals during this transport stage results in a mortality rate of between 30% and 90%. If the lorises remain in their native countries like Indonesia, they are taken to illegal animal markets where they can be exposed to extreme heat.

But, hey, Rihanna. Cute Instagram shot.

Rihanna takes on Philip Green

There's a confusing court case gathering in the wings as Rihanna sues TopShop over a tshirt with her face on that the Tory sacking advisor Philip Green (sorry, I mean "Philip Green's wife", don't I?) was flogging without her permission.

The oddity is that in a rather detailed unattributed source briefing to the New York Post, Rihanna's team more-or-less admitted that she doesn't have much of case:

The source said, “Rihanna’s management asked Topshop a number of times to stop selling her image and were told, ‘We do what we want.’ They buy the pictures from a photographer, but they do not pay the artist licensing fees. Unfortunately, UK law does not protect the artist.

What is most offensive for Rihanna is that they basically told her, ‘Go to hell. We don’t care; we are going to continue selling you.’ Topshop is now in the United States. They set up in Manhattan and Nordstrom, but they know better than to do this in the US because they would get in trouble,” our source continued.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think admitting there's no law which protects artists from having their faces splashed on tshirts might weaken your case somewhat.

Why is she pushing ahead?

“Even though the UK laws don’t protect the artist, she has decided to move forward and sue Topshop. She has spent almost $1 million in litigation at this point. She says it’s the principle, and wants to make a statement about it. They are taking advantage of artists. It is just exploitation. What they are doing is wrong.”

Yeah, when you go into TopShop and see the tshirts made by people earning pennies, it's really the exploitation of multimillionaire Rihanna that you should be focusing on.

Still, burning through a million dollars to make a point isn't a bad way of spending the money you have and don't know what to do with. It's not like you're creating bigger problems for yourself, is it?

Sorry... what were you saying, New York Post?

We’re told the case is now in discovery. Rihanna has handed over details of her fashion deals with Armani and River Island, a competitor to Topshop in the UK.

So in order to pursue a case you admit is likely to not go anywhere, you've handed over top-secret details of a deal with a competitor to a company who you believe are exploitative?

Who on earth is advising you?

Gordon in the morning: How Rihanna stole Christmas

Rihanna loves Christmas, the whole Christmas season,
But it's not gifts or turkeys she gives as her reason.
Maybe it's the 500 k she gets for those nights
she turns up in London to turn on the lights.
She drifts by, eventually, a whole hour late,
flicks at a switch and sings (not so great).
Each in the crowd, they turned to their friend:
"We wait an hour, she didn't stay to the end!"
For as soon as she arrived - to make all things worse -
she dashed off the stage, song hanging, mid-verse!
Half a million, half a song; it's somewhat slapdash.
And they could have got Pink for a third of the cash.

(With heartfelt apologies to Dr Seuss)

Rihanna offers $250 album

Times are tough for selling physical products in the music industry, so I suppose you've got to be impressed at Rihanna offering a copy of her CD which costs $250.

She does throw some stuff in to sweeten the deal:

The Diamonds Executive Platinum Box edition includes a copy of the album, a 2GB credit card-style USB, a unisex T-shirt with a Michael Muller photo printed on, and seven art print 12x15 lithographs.

It will also contain three device adhesives featuring Rihanna's Unapologetic cover, logo and image, seven laptop stickers, a vinyl featuring remixes of her single 'Diamonds' and a View-Master containing 3D images depicting her style transformation.

Some stickers, a t-shirt and - oooooh! a two gigabyte memory card. A whole two gig.

Okay, I'll admit the idea of a Viewmaster is quite a nice idea, but they only cost a tenner. An eight track edition - that might have been a move.

Oprah rejoices at Rihanna-Brown reunion

Oprah has long pushed a "men who hit you can change" line on domestic violence, so it's not surprising that she's thrilled at the news that Rihanna and Chris Brown are reuniting. Still, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth:

"I'm not surprised," Winfrey said of Rihanna's decision to work on her relationship with Brown, who released a personal video yesterday in which he reveals he still loves his ex. "You know what I loved about that interview is that she came with a big, wide open heart. She was in the space of forgiveness. And that she learned a lesson, that she was repeating with Chris Brown exactly what she needed to learn from her father."

Really, Oprah? It was Rihanna who needed to "learn a lesson", was it? Isn't "teaching their partners a lesson" what people say they're doing when they batter them?

Everyone has their own choices to make, but to suggest that it was Rihanna who had the lessons to learn sends a stinking rotten message.

Gordon in the morning: Biting the hand

What might the world look like when the split of News Corporation's publishing and broadcasting businesses take place?

Perhaps it will be a world where The Sun doesn't spend all its time cheering on everything that happens on Sky.

It might actually look a bit like the kicking given to that awful Rihanna fashion thing over on Sky Living:

RIHANNA’S telly career has got off to a rocky start after ratings for her much-hyped new fashion series fell to just 79,000.

Thousands have turned off Styled To Rock — executively produced by the singer and featuring wannabe designers competing to create a festival outfit for her.

Fronted by Girls Aloud star Nicola Roberts, it has bagged big name guests including Kanye West, Cheryl Cole and Katy Perry.

But three episodes in and it’s not rocking the ratings.

The Sky Living show started with an overnight viewing figure of just 95,000 — down on the channel’s usual audience of 153,000.

It fell to 79,000 for the second episode before perking up a bit to 110,000 for this week’s instalment on Tuesday.

That's deputy TV editor Leigh Holmwood, who doubles down the chutzpah by slapping an "exclusive" on the story.

There'll be praise for the licence fee next. Alright, maybe not that.

Rihanna reaches number one. Actually, she's sold a few more copies than that.

A notable week this week, as Rihanna claims a record she'd probably rather not have: The first album to reach number one in the UK with sales below 10,000 copies.

Rather than wonder if their pricing and product is correct, the record labels want to simply fudge the way the chart works to stop it being embarrassing when Rihanna is compared with, say, Ed Sheeran's sales:

But with streaming services like Spotify luring digital buyers from iTunes, record companies believe that album “plays” should be included in the charts.

How would that work, actually? There was a statistic a while back which suggested the average number of plays for each CD purchased in the US was less than one, which would suggest that the 9,000-odd physical sales should count as something less than that if plays were being considered, which doesn't make sense.

How about accepting that the album was never anything more than a side-effect of how much you could fit on a disc, and perhaps dropping the album chart altogether? Add those 9,000 sales to the single sales for each of the individual tracks?

Rihanna nearly burns alive (except, of course, she doesn't)

London's burning, London's burning, fetch the engines, fetch the engines:

Rihanna has been evacuated from a London hotel fire.

The 'We Found Love' singer and 300 guests were rescued from the Corinthia Hotel in Whitehall Place in the early hours of the morning (27.06.12) after a blaze broke out in a lift shaft.

"Rescued", you say, ContactMusic?

As so often happens, this turns out to be 'minor incident in a place where celeb was staying; fire alarm goes off; people stand around in the street for a bit' rather than a rescue:

London Fire Brigade have confirmed that no one was injured, and Clare Durnford, the hotel's public relations manager insisted the incident was not serious, and evacuation was just a safety precaution.

She said: ''At approximately 6.30am, one of the service elevator motors at Corinthia Hotel London burnt out. There was a slight discharge of smoke and because of our robust fire management policy, the alarms were activated and a full evacuation of the building was carried out.

''As a matter of procedure, the fire brigade were called to carry out full safety checks throughout the building. All guests were safely accounted for and were allowed back into the hotel soon after 7am.''

Not only was there no rescue, then; there was no fire, either.

On a headline

Isn't that called bondage, Newsbeat?

Let me ease your tight shoes, E!

E! has a question:

Why Is Rihanna Naked With Scale-Covered Breasts?

I think I can help you out, there, E! It's for attention, and to help flog records and merchandise.

Gordon in the morning: Any umbrellas to fix today?

Really, Gordon? Five years on the best joke you can come up with to promote Rihanna's show on Sky Living ("welcome Rihanna's move to Britain") is a joke about Umbrellas?

Well... not quite:

The singer — famous for her skimpy outfits — filmed two episodes earlier this year and is due back next month.

Rihanna has won 18 American Music Awards, two Brits, three MOBOs and five Grammys. She's sold over 25 million albums and 60 million singles. In what way is she "famous for her skimpy outfits"?

Gordon in the morning on Sunday: Jokes and trains

Today, Gordon reports on Rihanna's love affair with the London Underground:

Tube gets a Jubi-Rih line
Rihanna is obsessed with the Underground

It's what you'd expect - random old nonsense, held together by an unsourced and clearly made-up quote:

The Bajan singer, who has been in London this week to promote her new film Battleship, has made a wish list after browsing through the Transport For London online gift shop.

She dreamed up the idea after necking a few glasses of wine while watching several episodes of BBC2 TV series The Tube on the iPlayer with a girl pal.

Understandably, the rubbish doesn't stand up to any examination; indeed, almost as soon as it was published, Going Underground's blog trashed it to within an inch of its life.

There is one thing, though: today is April Fool's Day. Could it be that this pile of unlikely sounding bollocks is meant to be unlikely sounding? Could this be Gordon trying to do a joke?

The trouble is, when every day you run obviously false stories supported by blatantly invented quotes from transparently non-existent people, how would you flag up when your readers are meant to be in on the joke?

On this day, readers are well-advised to approach newspaper stories with enough salt ready to cure a haddock. But every day is like that for the Bizzare column.

[Thanks to @jamesthegill for the tip]

Beyonce didn't get where she is today by recording rotten songs

Chris Martin tried to write for Beyonce, but Beyonce turned her nose up:

Well, I did write a song for Beyonce, but it got rejected by her A&R people. And the one I wrote for Rihanna didn't get rejected.

Apparently there are, like, barriers, man:

"It was when [Rihanna] was doing 'Rated R', but it took so long – there's still this tribalism in music where we're rock and you're hip hop, and sometimes it takes a while to get across those barriers."

I think you're confusing "barriers" with "quality thresholds", Chris.

Chris Brown: Sorry, sort of

Not everything on Fox News is paranoid, gibbering, right-slanted douchery. Take this, a response from Andy Levy after Chris Brown complained about something Levy had said on Twitter:



[Hat-tip to the The MediaBlog]